When you think about it, the notion that non-whites can't be racist because they don't have power makes complete sense. Or at least to liberals.
It makes complete sense to a liberal once the liberals have made the turn from the race-blind Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s to the race-obsessed Affirmative Action of the 1970s.
After all, how can you justify the swing from race-blindness in the law to race-obsessed quotas, and under-representation without a new theory of race and racism?
No problem, humans are masters at that sort of thing. That's why we invented Reason in the first place, to manage our difficult social relationships and justify ourselves to the wider community.
And really, how do you excuse a flat-out racist like Rev. Al Sharpton or Ta-Nehisi Coates?
Really, I'm surprised you even have to ask the question. You come up with a rationalization that it is OK when we do it. Because power.
Yes, of course, why didn't I think of it. If you don't have the power then you can't be racist! No problem! And if you do have the power then you can't say racist things, not nohow.
But here's a problem for you rationalizers. Let's take Ta-Nehisi Coates who has a good living writing racist chaff for The Atlantic. Coates is employed by the very white Atlantic and gets published by the very white Penguin Random House.
In other words, Ta-Nehisi Coates is what you might call an Uncle Tom, a tame black writing racist screeds for the white Massa. Only this time the Massa is a noble, educated, liberal white Massa not the hateful Southern white plantation Massa of yore.
But if Coates is writing for the white overlords, that means he is writing for The Power, and so anything he writes is probably the most vile and monstrous racist bilge, because it is wrong for the Powerful to write racist bilge. If you are paid and publicized by the white power structure then you can't make racist remarks, because power. That's the Narrative.
Only liberals don't seem to get it. No yet.
We had a perfect example of this over the weekend when the black conservative activist Candace Owens reproduced the tweets of New York Times Korean American darling Sarah Jeong, only where Jeong's racist sexist tweets were anti-white, Candace substituted "Jewish" or "black." Immediately, Candace's Twitter account was suspended! And only after a Twitter storm had erupted did Twitter admit it had made a mistake and restore her account.
Notice the Power equation here. Candace Owens is a black woman conservative. Hey! That should be about as marginalized as can be, because the liberal lefty ruling class regards such people as, well, gap-toothed? Deplorable? Hey, what about sub-human?
So Candace Owens can't have power, right? And the proof of it is that Twitter's Hate Speech detector detected her right away and the Good Little Girl monitoring Hate Speech at Twitter immediately suspended her account. So no power there, therefore no problem there, right? Candace Owens doesn't have power, therefore she can't a racist. The proof is that the powerful, Twitter, dumped on her.
On the other hand if you are a Korean American woman you can spout off on Twitter at the edge of Hate Speech without getting suspended. Because you are a little darling of the powerful.
Yeah! Sarah Jeong! No problem with her at Twitter. She can spout of anti-white and anti-male drivel all day and Twitter has no problem. And now Jeong is going to work for The New York Times, the epitome of ruling class conventional wisdom! Can you spell Power, baby?
So what happens next? Do liberals and lefties all of a sudden decide that their race game has reached its sell-by date and needs to be replaced with another apology for power?
All I can say is that I just can't wait. After all, powerful people gotta power.
Until the revolution, of course.
It makes complete sense to a liberal once the liberals have made the turn from the race-blind Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s to the race-obsessed Affirmative Action of the 1970s.
After all, how can you justify the swing from race-blindness in the law to race-obsessed quotas, and under-representation without a new theory of race and racism?
No problem, humans are masters at that sort of thing. That's why we invented Reason in the first place, to manage our difficult social relationships and justify ourselves to the wider community.
And really, how do you excuse a flat-out racist like Rev. Al Sharpton or Ta-Nehisi Coates?
Really, I'm surprised you even have to ask the question. You come up with a rationalization that it is OK when we do it. Because power.
Yes, of course, why didn't I think of it. If you don't have the power then you can't be racist! No problem! And if you do have the power then you can't say racist things, not nohow.
But here's a problem for you rationalizers. Let's take Ta-Nehisi Coates who has a good living writing racist chaff for The Atlantic. Coates is employed by the very white Atlantic and gets published by the very white Penguin Random House.
In other words, Ta-Nehisi Coates is what you might call an Uncle Tom, a tame black writing racist screeds for the white Massa. Only this time the Massa is a noble, educated, liberal white Massa not the hateful Southern white plantation Massa of yore.
But if Coates is writing for the white overlords, that means he is writing for The Power, and so anything he writes is probably the most vile and monstrous racist bilge, because it is wrong for the Powerful to write racist bilge. If you are paid and publicized by the white power structure then you can't make racist remarks, because power. That's the Narrative.
Only liberals don't seem to get it. No yet.
We had a perfect example of this over the weekend when the black conservative activist Candace Owens reproduced the tweets of New York Times Korean American darling Sarah Jeong, only where Jeong's racist sexist tweets were anti-white, Candace substituted "Jewish" or "black." Immediately, Candace's Twitter account was suspended! And only after a Twitter storm had erupted did Twitter admit it had made a mistake and restore her account.
Notice the Power equation here. Candace Owens is a black woman conservative. Hey! That should be about as marginalized as can be, because the liberal lefty ruling class regards such people as, well, gap-toothed? Deplorable? Hey, what about sub-human?
So Candace Owens can't have power, right? And the proof of it is that Twitter's Hate Speech detector detected her right away and the Good Little Girl monitoring Hate Speech at Twitter immediately suspended her account. So no power there, therefore no problem there, right? Candace Owens doesn't have power, therefore she can't a racist. The proof is that the powerful, Twitter, dumped on her.
On the other hand if you are a Korean American woman you can spout off on Twitter at the edge of Hate Speech without getting suspended. Because you are a little darling of the powerful.
Yeah! Sarah Jeong! No problem with her at Twitter. She can spout of anti-white and anti-male drivel all day and Twitter has no problem. And now Jeong is going to work for The New York Times, the epitome of ruling class conventional wisdom! Can you spell Power, baby?
So what happens next? Do liberals and lefties all of a sudden decide that their race game has reached its sell-by date and needs to be replaced with another apology for power?
All I can say is that I just can't wait. After all, powerful people gotta power.
Until the revolution, of course.
No comments:
Post a Comment