|All of these are just like the others, none of these doesn't belong|
As soon as the news that Justice Breyer would retire hit the wires, almost every news outlet gushed that his replacement would be a black woman. Qualifications? Who cares? Positions? Probably liberal, but who cares? What matters? Black skin and identifies with female anatomy.
Now, how is that not discrimination? It's not even cloaking it under 'most qualified' language. It is saying anyone not a black woman will be automatically disqualified for having the wrong skin color and identifying with the wrong anatomy.
Is this OK? It must be, our media is cheering from coast to coast. And is the press ever wrong? I mean, back in my college days liberals always insisted Affirmative Action had nothing to do with quotas. It had nothing to do with group identity and ethnicity and gender. It was simply opening up opportunities by removing barriers to the ones most obviously qualified who otherwise would have been prevented from moving forward due to bigotry and prejudice.
But now, they don't even seem to care about hiding it. I guess that is proof of their hammerlock on power. They can say this nomination has bupkis to do with anything but group identify and ethnicity and gender. Anything else is small potatoes. And what's more, it rightly bars candidates based on group identity and ethnicity and gender. And that's fine, too. Welcome to 21st Century Former America.
Speaking of 'you heard postwar liberals say, but the Left now says.' I posted here on how MLK has become a bit of a ghost figure in the last few years. Where once I couldn't go two days without him referenced or quoted, now I go months.
I stand corrected. There was quite a flurry of MLK quotes and references this year, even if it took MLK weekend to happen. And the emphasis? Turns out the old MLK I grew up with was either stretching the truth, or was a-changin with the times.
Really. I heard more references and more quotes than I ever had where MLK draws stark contrasts between how blacks and whites should be treated and judged based on, well, skin color. And even more than that, I saw multiple quotes where it turns out MLK was warming up to the old ultraviolence and butt kicking when need be. Sure some innocents might die and destruction and all, but sometimes you just can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Here's a handy article unpacking King's awakening to the greater Black Panther ideals and the possibilities thereof.
Again, MLK was always the man Jesus should have been. After all, Jesus overturned tables and whipped money changers out of the temple courts and as we know - Violence Is Never The Answer (repeated more when I was growing up than there are grains of sand on the beach). That's why MLK was such a gem. Never would he condone or even come close to condoning violence. Nonviolence and peace all the way. And skin color? It was nothing to him, or at least the world he was striving for would be that way.
But not this year. Turns out he was every bit willing to condemn whites for white, and warm up to some violence, terror and destruction when need be. You know, like most people throughout the ages. Almost everyone else has held to that approach, including size people up based on group identity. MLK was proxy Jesus through most of my life because he never, ever would condone such things.
Apparently these and other quotes I've seen this year were not known, or were kept under lock and key to be revealed at a more convenient time. That time being now.
|The New MLK: Revisionist History, or was it Historical Fantasy all along?|
Disclaimer: I realize some of my rhetoric here is a bit over the top. But it's stunning to see the ease with which the Left can simply rewrite reality, or declare wonderful what only yesterday it said was Nazi. I personally never worshipped at the altar of MLK. It wouldn't surprise me if Saint MLK we grew up worshipping was a little more complex than they said. But it's the brazenness with which they now can change the rules as they see fit, having no fear of resistance.
James Neuchterlein writing a generation ago offered that in the world he'd come of age in, it was considered bad form to mention publicly the racial and ethnic factors politicians took account of in private.ReplyDelete
I think if you investigated, you'd also discover that machine bosses were quite wary about slating ward-heelers for marquee positions. Put some classy Mr. Clean in the Governor's chair, as long as he puts people on your patronage in discretionary positions you've identified for them, we're good. A dear friend of mine once attended a dinner where Averill Harriman was the speaker. He acknowledged in his remarks the bosses who'd recruited him and run his campaign thus: "Carmine's always after me about patronage. Alec only wants 'representation'". Edward Banfield in one of his books described how the patronage economy grew unsustainable and in so doing generated the collapse of ward club politics. Some part of me misses those old crooks.
It's amazing how, as thing go from crazy to crazier on a daily basis, I find myself looking back fondly at things that seem tame by today's standards.Delete