Obama’s “post-racial America” has not materialized. Instead, the nation has gone in the opposite direction and become race-obsessed America.
No, that’s not quite right either. We’re not obsessed with race — we’ve become obsessed with accusations of racism. Some of the accusations are true; some, not so much. But what used to be a last-ditch smear tactic used only by the most desperate political operatives, or something which as a society we’d try to ignore in the hopes that it would go away, has instead become a daily occurrence, a standard category in the 24-hour news cycle:
Politics • Sports • Business • Accusations of Racism • Weather
Just a few years ago, shortly before Obama appeared on the political landscape, I wrote this satirical dictionary definition of the word “racist”:
racist – A statement of surrender during an argument. When two people or disputants are engaged in an acrimonious debate, the side that first says “Racist!” has conceded defeat. Synonymous with saying “Resign” during a chess game, or “Uncle” during a schoolyard fight. Originally, the term was meant to indicate that one side was accusing the other of being racist, but once it was noticed that people only resorted to this tactic when all other arguments had been exhausted, it acquired its new meaning of “indicating one’s own concession of defeat.”
Oh, how times have changed, and how quickly. Not only do people now reach for the race card first in almost any political, social, or personal dispute, but sometimes the accusations are even true (or partly true), as public exhibition of racism has become more commonplace. No matter how you slice it — an increase of racism and of false accusations of racism — I see this as a huge step backward for our nation.
The Week in Racism
So many accusations of racism battle for space in your morning headlines, it’s easy to get them all confused. So I’ve created the following scorecard to help you sort it all out.
Here are the Top Ten Accusations of Racism for the last week, along with a handy “Level of Actual Racism” accuracy rating (on a 1-to-10 scale, with 10 being the most racist) to help determine to what extent each accusation is true, or if the accuser is just crying “Uncle” in a losing argument.
1. Mel Gibson “Pack of [email protected]@ers” Meltdown
|Level of Actual Racism:
As everyone on Earth has heard by now, actor Mel Gibson destroyed his own career when he unleashed a series of abusive rants at his ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva — which she secretly recorded and then leaked to the gossip site RadarOnline. Amidst all his rage and hate and hyperventilating threats, Gibson clearly says at one point, “If you get raped by a pack of [email protected]@ers, it’ll be your fault.”
Now, merely saying “the N-word” is enough to endanger any white celebrity’s career, but to say so in a derogatory sense is curtains. Gibson is finished in Hollywood. Yet what’s interesting about Mel Gibson’s rant is that it’s not racist in the “normal” way but rather at a deeper level.
If you calmly analyze the offending sentence “If you get raped by a pack of [email protected]@ers, it’ll be your fault,” you can see that Gibson never overtly says he dislikes or has a low opinion of black people. In fact, they’re not the subject of his vitriol but rather side characters in a hate-fantasy directed at his ex-girlfriend, who is the person he’s trying to insult. But this unconscious offhand reference to black people reveals his racism in four different ways:
b. By implying that black men will rape any provocatively dressed woman, Gibson is trafficking in the stereotype of blacks as sexually insatiable and violent.
c. He dehumanizes black people by using the concept of “a pack of [email protected]@ers” as an all-purpose bogeyman, some menacing evil force which lurks in the background waiting to pounce.
d. And of course, he uses the ultimately derogatory term “[email protected]@er” (so derogatory it’s no longer acceptable to even spell it out fully in a news report).
So, despite never consciously expressing an opinion about black people in his rant, Mel Gibson accidentally revealed his real attitudes about blacks, and so earns an Actual Racism rating of 8.5 out of 10.
2. The Brown Berets Tell Whites to “Go back to Europe!”
|Level of Actual Racism:
As discussed at Gateway Pundit, the race-based Hispanic paramilitary militia known as the Brown Berets showed up to counter-protest a Tea Party rally in Anaheim and started spouting mind-boggling anti-white racist rants. Here’s the video:
The action starts at 1:47 into the video, when the Brown Beret woman begins shouting through her bullhorn,
“You’re white! You don’t belong here! Back to Europe! Back to Europe! This was Mexican land! It’s still Mexican land! … Go back to Germany! Go back to Europe! The whites don’t belong here! This is America, the whites don’t belong here!”
For all the people accusing the Tea Party of being a racist organization: This video shows what a real racist organization is like. There is no need to ascribe racist thoughts to the minds of real racists, because their racism is self-evident. You will never find a performance like this at a Tea Party rally, because the Tea Party is not about race.
What makes the Brown Beret philosophy so totally absurd is that of course Hispanics are themselves also descended from Europeans. After all, isn’t Spain part of Europe too? Somewhere between 70% and 90% of Mexicans are of European heritage. And yet in the Brown Beret fantasy world, only certain Euro-Americans have to “go back,” while the rest get to stay. What we see on display here is racism combined with astounding stupidity, and so earns an Actual Racism rating of 8.0 out of 10.
3. Journolist False Racism Smear Campaign Ploy
Liberal media members
“Obama’s conservative critics”
|Level of Actual Racism:
In the most eye-opening scandal so far this year, the elite liberal email bulletin board known as “Journolist” was exposed as one vast brainstorming session on how to unfairly demonize conservatives. As reported at HotAir, the Daily Caller got ahold of the Journolist archives and discovered leading liberal pundits and mainstream reporters scheming during the 2008 presidential election about how to defuse the Jeremiah Wright scandal around then-candidate Barack Obama. Their solution?
In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
As HotAir’s Ed Morrissey incisively notes,
Ackerman wasn’t talking about a strategy to expose real racists, in the media or anywhere else. The Washington Independent reporter wanted to conduct a campaign against any figure on the Right, including journalists like Fred Barnes, to smear him as a racist for the political purposes of electing a Democrat to the White House. Notice that Ackerman doesn’t even bother to ask people to look for actual evidence of racism, but just suggests to pick a conservative name out of a hat.
Sound familiar? This tactic is now Standard Operating Procedure used against any and all critics of Obama. Endlessly fling out baseless accusations of racism, and let your opponents waste their time trying to disprove the allegations. The problem for the Democrats and the Left in general is that the number of people dissatisfied with Obama has grown so large, that his dwindling cadre of followers lashes out with “You’re all racists! All of you!” on a nearly daily basis these days. And as a consequence, the accusation has not only lost its sting, but has become counter-productive, as average Americans are sick and tired of being continuously slandered by their President’s own operatives.
Actual Racism: 0.0
4. NAACP Charges the Tea Party with Racism
The Tea Party
|Level of Actual Racism:
The NAACP set off a political firestorm this week when it charged “The Tea Party” of being “racist,” an accusation which has dominated the headlines all week and led to a series of denials and counter-charges (see below).
Lost in the flurry of finger-pointing is any evidence by the NAACP to support its claim. The media seems to be still operating on the principle that the accusation of racism is the only evidence required to prove racism. But where is the NAACP’s actual evidence? Maybe I missed it, but I have the feeling there was no proof offered in conjunction with the accusation, only a statement of political opinion about what goes on in other people’s heads.
Here’s why I’m dubious about the charges of racism against the “Tea Party”:
a. First and foremost, the “Tea Party” is a frame of mind, not an organization. There is no central leader or committee which controls the Tea Party, nor is there a unified platform. The term “Tea Party” is just a shorthand way to refer to the large and ever-growing contingent of people who feel dismayed at the direction the country has taken under the Obama administration, especially in regard to fiscal matters. Yes, there are local Tea Party associations, and there are populist politicians and pundits who want to anoint themselves self-declared leaders of a leaderless movement, but the closer you peer at “the Tea Party” itself, the more vague and loosely defined it becomes. It’s not an official political party, it’s not a crisply defined ideology, it’s not a corporation, it’s not anything at all, really, except millions of people who sorta kinda have an overlap of opinion concerning American economic policy and cultural values. Because of all this, it’s impossible to declare that “the Tea Party” as a unified whole possesses some identifiable but hidden trait (such as racism).
b. Opponents of the Tea Party have made no secret of their intent to destroy the movement with infiltrators and agents provocateurs who purposely display flagrantly racist comments or signs, which are then highlighted by their colleagues in the media and used to impugn the entire anti-Obama mindset. So any individual documented example of “racism” within the Tea Party should be treated with suspicion.
c. Does racism still exist in America? Unfortunately yes. I have the feeling it’s not nearly as prevalent as it was in the 19th century or even in the 1950s, but it still lingers here and there. Because of this, if you get any large group of people together, you’re likely to find some people in the crowd with racist feelings. So: Are there racists in the Tea Party? Probably. But there are also racists in the AFL-CIO, in the audience at a Taylor Swift concert, in the National Ping Pong League, and even in the Democratic Party. Since there seems to be a simmering low-level endemic racism in the human heart (something which may be impossible to ever fully eradicate), you can find racists (or crypto-racists) at every level of society and in every large organization. So pointing out individual racists here and there proves nothing really about whatever organizations they belong to — especially if the organization has no official membership and is as loosely defined as the Tea Party is.
d. Considering everything in point “c” above, one must then look at the stated goals or ideology of any organization accused of racism. There are racists in the KKK, but is the KKK a racist organization? Yes, because its self-declared ideology prominently features racist sentiments and goals. There are racists in the National Ping Pong League, but is the National Ping Pong League a racist organization? No, because its self-declared purpose is to organize Ping Pong tournaments, and race is nowhere mentioned. There are racists in the Tea Party, but is the Tea Party racist? No, because nowhere in the ideologies associated with the Tea Party are there any racist sentiments, nor are there any mentions of race at all, except perhaps a sweeping dedication to racial equality. Are black people or other minorities excluded from the Tea Party? No. In fact, they’re eagerly embraced.
e. Some on the left have attempted to make the following argument: that the fiscal policies advocated by the Tea Party are themselves a form of crypto-racism, because lower taxes and lower government spending means fewer government entitlement programs which means fewer benefits for those at the bottom of the economic scale, which tends to have a higher proportion of minorities. So the argument runs: If you want to lower the deficit by decreasing government spending, then you’re essentially taking money away from minorities, which proves your racist intent. To that I say (and many analysts agree): Encouraging people to free themselves from dependence on public handouts is not malicious or racist, but rather a form of “tough love,” an acknowledgement of each person’s independence and potential and self-worth. I would argue that overly lavish social welfare programs are a kind of “soft slavery,” whereby the beneficiaries are essentially owned by the state. So, if anything, it is the welfare state advocated by the left which hurts minorities in the long run; whereas the fiscal responsibility advocated by the Tea Party leads to a robust economy which helps everyone, including minorities.
This is easily the most contentious and impossible-to-quantify of all the “Actual Racism” ratings in this list, but I see no hard evidence of racism as a fundamental belief guiding those people who identify as “Tea Partiers,” and at worst maybe a real racist or two showed up at some Tea Party rally somewhere and were not as quickly identified and chased away as they could have been. So, I’ll assign an “Actual Racism” rating of 2.0 out of 10 for this entry, much as I’d probably assign a 2.0 racism rating to humanity in general.
5. Breitbart Counter-charges the NAACP with Racism
|Level of Actual Racism:
Web media mogul Andrew Breitbart was appalled at what he felt was the NAACP’s flimsy accusation of racism against the entirety of the Tea Party movement, and announced he would strike back with a video which showed that the NAACP were the ones exhibiting racism. When he delivered on his promise, the resulting video stunned everyone — including the Obama administration, who were apparently following this whole brouhaha closely.
You’ve undoubtedly seen the video by now, but just to be thorough, here it is again:
The key point to remember here is Breitbart said he was posting the video not to impugn the speaker, USDA official Shirley Sherrod, but rather the audience, composed of NAACP officials and members at a banquet.
When Sherrod recounts a tale which appears to describe how she denied help to a farmer simply because he is white, the audience laughs and murmurs in approval at her apparent mistreatment of the white farmer.
As is outlined in the next entry, the full video of the incident reveals that her tale later had a twist ending — that she eventually learned her lesson that it wasn’t only about race, that she realized she should discriminate against well-off people in favor of poor people, rather than just against white people in favor of black people.
This is exactly the point Breitbart later made on the Hannity Show:
HANNITY: She decides that he’ll get help from one of his own kind and she referred him to a white lawyer. But she also said on the tape that — admits that she didn’t do everything she could for him because he’s white.
Now what critics are saying is well that was edited. And what she’s claiming is that that was edited, that she left out the part that she had learned from this at the end of the tape which we just heard.
BREITBART: The reason why Shirley Sherrod is the story right now, not the NAACP, is because the White House which stands by the firing or the forced resignation — harassment as she said — they made the story about Shirley. They threw her under the bus.
I have not asked that she get fired. I’ve not asked for an investigation into her. The whole point was to show that the — for the NAACP to spend five days on national TV saying that the Tea Party is racist without any evidence when we can prove that the central argument didn’t happen and the mainstream media won’t play it — for them to talk about racism they should not be throwing stones in glass houses.
And what this video shows and what the NAACP affirms in their initial rebuke is not just that Shirley Sherrod, what she said was wrong, but that the audience was laughing and applauding as she described how she maltreated the white farmer.
HANNITY: Before she gets to the end of the story which is — which she’s claiming puts context. But there’s a —
BREITBART: Did the people in the audience know that there was going to be a point of redemption?
BREITBART: The point is that the NAACP at a dinner honoring this person is cheering on a person describing — describing a white person as the other. This is far worse than anything —
HANNITY: Let me ask you this.
BREITBART: — that has ever been alleged against the Tea Party and certainly not proved.
Now, totally aside from the speaker, did the NAACP audience in the video seem to briefly take delight in the portion of her tale in which she describes how she denied help to a farmer because of his race? From what I can see, the answer is a mild Yes. Sure, they didn’t erupt in wild applause at her tale of discrimination, but there were smiles and laughs and general nods of approval. So because of that I assign an Actual Racism ranking a low-to-moderate 3.5 in this case, because the audience was merely expressing approval of someone’s else‘s tale of racist mistreatment before they knew the tale had a twist ending.
6. The Firing of USDA Official Shirley Sherrod
Obama Administration & NAACP
|Level of Actual Racism:
This story is still unfolding as I write this, so apologies if it seems a bit out of date by the time you read it.
Shortly after the original short Shirley Sherrod video was released, members of the Obama administration called her up and demanded her immediate resignation. Furthermore, the NAACP issued a statement condemning her remarks. It seems that just about everyone who viewed the video — including the White House and the NAACP — felt the need to condemn it and the people in it.
But then the full video was found, and in the complete version of her speech, she goes on to say that she learned her lesson not to discriminate against all white people, because poor white farmers need help too, and that she learned that the real struggle was a class struggle, not a race struggle. But her later words don’t erase what she said at the conclusion of her anecdote:
That’s when…it was revealed to me that it’s about poor versus those who have. And not so much about white — it is about white and black — but it’s not, you know…it opened my eyes.”
Here’s the full 43-minute long video of her whole speech, if you want to judge for yourself:
As you will see, she transitions from her discussion of race to a discussion of class.
Now, it kind of disturbs me even more that the rest of her speech becomes essentially a parable about how she became converted to what is essentially Marxist ideology, how she learned to use bureaucracy to further the class struggle. But that’s a different topic altogether. What we’re talking about here is: Was the Obama administration right to fire her, and was the NAACP right to criticize her, now that we see from the full video that she’s no longer a racist?
Well, as we now know, she’s been offered her job back by the administration, and NAACP retracted their criticism of her. Everyone’s head is spinning and trying to grasp why the White House and the NAACP so swiftly denounced her in the first place, and just as swiftly undenounced her. It seems that they are both so afraid of the accusation of racism and were themselves so appalled at what they saw in the original video that they threw her under the bus before she even knew there was a bus. Her insta-firing based solely on a YouTube video shows just how hyper-sensitive the Obama administration is to matters of race.
Wasn’t this supposed to be a “post-racial America” under Obama? What is being spun as a “quick reaction” by the White House communications team instead appears to me like the amateur flailings of political novices running hither and thither the moment after someone hits the panic button. Ponder how the administration acted in this case and then ask yourself: Would we want these flighty people in charge during moments like the Cuban Missile Crisis or the 9/11 attacks? I cringe at the thought.
Anyway, a zillion pundits and cable networks and blogs are dissecting this whole story right at this moment, but from where I stand, having listened to the whole video, Shirley Sherrod is not entirely off the hook, because despite her self-congratulatory tale of redemption, she still conceded that it’s “not so much about white — it is about white and black — but it’s not, you know…”, meaning that it still is about race, but it’s merely not exclusively about race in her mind, but about class as well. Even though the focus on her is a clever misdirection to take the focus off the NAACP audience, I still think she shot herself in the foot with her words, and so I’ve assigned a moderate 4.5 racism rating to this incident.
7. New Black Panthers/Department of Justice Imbroglio
The public/DOJ attorneys
New Black Panthers/DOJ
|Level of Actual Racism:
This story mostly played out earlier this month and fell outside our timeframe, but the tail end of breaking revelations about the New Black Panthers happened just at the beginning of the week, so it merits a brief discussion here — especially since it is the most intensely racial and possibly the most noteworthy of all the race-obsessed incidents this month. (So far at least — still got ten July days to go for more Obama-era racial strife!)
The story started back on Election Day in November of 2008, when members of the “New Black Panther Party” positioned themselves in military garb and wielding weapons in front of a Philadelphia polling station, in an apparent attempt to intimidate voters.
Considering that the New Black Panther Party was already well-known for its scathing anti-white sermons, and in light of the self-evident menacing attitude of the Panthers trying to scare away non-Obama voters in the video, the Department of Justice, in the waning days of the Bush administration, filed a civil rights violation case against the men depicted in the video. When they later failed to show up in court to even defend themselves, the DOJ won the case by default.
Incomprehensibly, the new Department of Justice, under Obama appointee Eric Holder, simply dropped the case against the New Black Panthers, despite having already won it.
The public became very suspicious: Was the case dropped because, in Eric Holder’s worldview, only whites can be guilty of racism? What else could explain his decision to drop this case? Would he have dropped it if the races were reversed, and white supremacists tried to prevent black people from voting? Obviously not.
The scandal then escalated further when a DOJ attorney, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest over the case, and became a whistleblower who accused Obama’s Department of Justice of only pursuing civil right violations committed by white people but ignoring civil right violations committed by black people. At last, an insider had come forward and confirmed what many people had already suspected.
Day by day, the scandal grew, as more disgusted DOJ staffers backed up Adams’s claims, detailed here on PajamasMedia.
Meanwhile, on another front, Naked Emperor News dug up a clip from a National Geographic documentary featuring none other than King Samir Shabazz, the very person protected from prosecution by Eric Holder and the Department of Justice, saying the most incontrovertibly racist things you’ll ever hear:
“I hate white people. All of them. Every last iota of a cracker I hate him. … You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers. You gonna have to kill some of their babies.”
Prior to the emergence of this video, some dedicated Obama defenders were trying to explain away the DOJ’s decision to drop the voter intimidation case by claiming there was no evidence that the New Black Panthers blocking the polling station had any antipathy toward whites.
You might think things couldn’t get any worse, but they did. The B-Cast then unearthed photos of Shabazz proudly displaying his rather terrifying arsenal of high-powered guns, proving he had the firepower to back up his threats.
Things got so bad that the real original Black Panthers — the ones from the ’60s and ’70s — began making media appearances to explain that they had no connection whatsoever to these “New” Black Panthers, who apparently had just hijacked the name to give themselves some credibility as an organization:
The NBPP’s divisive positions have been condemned by members of the original Black Panthers. Co-founder Bobby Seale believes that the NBPP has “hijacked our name and are hijacking our history.” David Hilliard, a former Panther and executive director of the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation, has said that the racism that the group “espouse(s) flies directly in the face of the Black Panthers’ multicultural ideology and purpose.”
I almost burst out loud laughing at this, because apparently the original Black Panthers are beginning to believe the historical rehabilitation they’ve been receiving courtesy of revisionist apologists. Let us not forget that the original Black Panthers were if anything even more outrageously racist than the New Black Panthers. As evidence, we can look at an image posted by Shabazz on his personal Web page:
Turns out that Shabazz didn’t create this image himself, but simply took it from a children’s coloring book produced by the original Black Panthers sometime during the late ’60s or the early ’70s. It features many similar images, such as…
Oh, but we respectable original Black Panthers are not associated with those awful New Black Panthers! We’re not like them at all!
Anyway, we’re going a little far afield here, but there is so much egregious racism of all kinds coming from all directions in this complicated scandal that it easily earns a 9.5 on the Actual Racism scale.
8. The Resegregation of North Carolina Schools?
NAACP and various protesters
Wake County School Board
|Level of Actual Racism:
On Tuesday, a school board meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina, erupted into chaos as protesters refused to accept a vote to re-establish neighborhood schools for Raleigh students.
What could possibly be wrong with the concept of neighborhood schools, a system in which students can elect to go to schools near their homes? According to the protesters, neighborhood schools would “bring back segregation” since local schools would reflect the demographics of the local neighborhoods; and since Raleigh still has (apparently — I’ve never been there) self-segregated racially homogenous neighborhoods, the schools would become segregated once again too.
The new proposal would change the current system in Raleigh, in which students are bussed across town, generally to schools far from their homes, all in the name of “diversity” — the unimpeachable buzzword of modern education. Doesn’t matter that kids would prefer to go to nearby schools; doesn’t matter that endless hours of unnecessary bus-rides pollute the atmosphere and spew greenhouse gasses and increase our addiction to oil; doesn’t matter that the new proposal would try to ensure schools of equal quality for all students; DIVERSITY is the trump card which defeats all others in the name of race-based policies.
From what I’ve read of this case, the Wake County School Board has no racist intent whatsoever, but on the other hand the protesters are the ones who won’t stop focusing on race, so I’ll give the Board an Actual Racism rating of 0.0 and the protesters an Actual Racism rating of 3.0.
9. Pro-Johannes Mehserle Rally in Walnut Creek
Oscar Grant supportes
|Level of Actual Racism:
On Monday, something unexpected happened in Walnut Creek, a suburb east of Oakland: protesters held a rally supporting Johannes Mehserle, the BART policeman who was convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter for accidentally shooting Oscar Grant during a chaotic mass arrest on a train platform. This was unusual because, until now, every single rally and public event about the incident had been against Mehserle specifically and against police in general.
Needless to say, the anti-police activists got wind of the suburban pro-police rally and showed up en masse to counter-protest, leading to scenes like this:
Because Mehserle was white and Grant was black, the shooting incident has become inextricably suffused with racial overtones, despite the fact that no one — not even the prosecutors in the case — has ever produced any evidence that Mehserle was racist nor that the shooting was racially motivated. Even so, most of the counter-protesters held signs declaring that the shooting was a “racist murder,” while the police supporters wanted Mehserle to be released with no charges.
In this case, I disagree with both sides: I don’t think Mehserle acted out of malice, but on the other hand he did perform his duties with fatal incompetence, so I actually agree with the Involuntary Manslaughter conviction. Yet both sides at this demonstration demanded extreme results: the Oscar Grant supporters wanted to see a first degree murder conviction, while the Johannes Mehserle supporters wanted him to be found Not Guilty on all charges.
Were the pro-police protesters “racists” for supporting Mehserle, as the counter-protesters claimed? Once again, although I did not attend the event, photo essays made by people specifically looking for evidence of racism (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/07/20/18654335.php and http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/07/19/18654295.php) revealed nothing amiss, except for a few contorted faces on both sides during heated arguments. Could there have been some kind of subconscious “white solidarity” hidden in the hearts of some of the pro-Mehserle protesters? Eh, who knows? Especially in the absence of any tangible evidence. As a result, I give this incident an Actual Racism rating of 1.0 out of 10, mostly because it just didn’t look good having a mostly white-attended protest facing off against a mostly black-attended counter-protest.
10. “Machinery of Whiteness” Book Tour
United States & all white people
|Level of Actual Racism:
Bay Area activist and San Francisco State instructor Steve Martinot just launched a book tour for his recently released title The Machinery of Whiteness, appearing at local venues. A listing describing one of his readings is a revelation into the mindset of the modern Left — but you’d better strap yourself into your chair if you’ve never encountered what American universities teach about race these days:
In The Machinery of Whiteness, Martinot examines how race and racism are produced in the United States, analyzing the politics of racialization and the racial segregation and racial deprivation that have kept the United States a white-dominated society throughout its history. Martinot dedicates this work to expunging white supremacy from the earth.
The Machinery of Whiteness investigates how “whiteness” came to be foundational to the process that then produced the modern concept of race. Martinot addresses the instrumentalization of women as a necessary step in the formation of the concept, furthering the debates regarding the relationships of race and gender. He also addresses U.S. international interventionism, the anti-immigrant movements, and white racist populism to describe the political forms that white supremacy takes.
Martinot brings together these ideas to analyze the underlying cultural structures of racialization that have driven and conditioned the resurgence of white supremacy and white entitlement in the wake of the civil rights movements. This book is a call to transform the cultural structures of the United States to make justice and democracy—which depend on inclusion and not segregation—possible.
I assigned this entry an Actual Racism rating of ≠⅝.Π (does not equal five-eighths point pi), which makes about as much sense as academia’s current thinking on race.
Can’t We All Just Get Along?
Is there any antidote to this escalating nightmare? Perhaps. To wrap things up, we travel to England for an inspirational palate-cleanser:
THE stunned black dad of a newborn, WHITE, baby girl declared yesterday — “I’m sure she’s my kid … I just don’t know why she’s BLONDE.”
British Nmachi Ihegboro has amazed genetics experts who say the little girl is NOT an albino.
Dad Ben, 44, a customer services adviser, admitted: “We both just sat there after the birth staring at her.”
Mum Angela, 35, of Woolwich, South London, beamed as she said: “She’s beautiful – a miracle baby.”
All together now: Awwwwwwwwwwww….