SYDNEY WILLIAMS; “YOU’RE A RACIST!”
http://swtotd.blogspot.com/
“You’re a racist!” The words stung. At first, I was upset and mystified. The word racist is defined by Webster as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human behavior and the racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” I could not understand the vitriol that prompted the accusation. I do not (and did not) believe I am racist, nor do I think I am misogynistic, anti-Semitic or xenophobic. While this incident occurred three years ago, I had not belittled Blacks by urging them to be dependent on an all-caring government. I have never implied they could not make it on their own; in fact, I have suggested they could and would – that aspiration was half the battle. I have never denied Asian-Americans admission to America’s most prestigious universities, simply because they were Asians, nor have I ever supported Boycott and Divest Sanctions (BADS) against Israel, just because the Jewish people wish to defend a homeland that dates back 2000 years And I never persuaded a young intern to perform oral sex in my office.
I am certainly no paragon of virtue. But all I had done was to write words in support of Mr. Trump’s attempt to fulfill his campaign promise to “drain the swamp,” a quagmire of corrupt politicians, crony capitalists and bureaucratic administrators who feed off the public teat. I had had the temerity to defy teachers’ unions, when writing in support of school choice for inner-city children. I had provoked the anger of the “woke” by supporting the “stop, question and frisk” policy in cities where crime is a constant menace for minorities.
My accuser was a man plagued with Trump Derangement Syndrome – an emotional condition that infects the rationally challenged. My support for Mr. Trump was based on his belief that smaller, less intrusive government, with less regulation and lower taxes, provides the incentives to drive economic growth. I believe it is the private sector, not government, that allows higher living standards. I support Mr. Trump’s concern for failing public schools, especially those in inner cities, and that choice should be available to all Americans, regardless of income or wealth. Is it right to conclude that order and discipline in the classroom are necessary for learning, or are they instruments of oppression as claimed by New York City Schools’ Chancellor Richard Carranza? Is it racist to help raise living standards for Blacks and Hispanics? Is it racist to support better schools for inner city children? In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Jason Riley wrote: “According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 67% of charter students are nonwhite and 58% come from loc-income families.” We live in a world where demand for such schools exceeds supply, yet they are denied by politicians financially obligated to teachers’ unions.
Is it racist to curtail illegal immigration and encourage legal immigration, and is it racist to argue against sanctuary cities and states? Most of those negatively affected by the influx of illegals, are under-educated, poverty-stricken minorities living in inner cities. They are the ones who must compete for jobs, as well as for federal and state-offered services. They are the ones most affected by the squalor and human excrement on streets in sanctuary cities like San Francisco, Boulder, Chicago and Hartford. According to the Federation for Immigration Reform, there were in the U.S., in 2018, 564 sanctuary jurisdictional cities and states in the United States. A nation of individual states is held together by common bonds and by federal laws that apply equally to all. Cynically, Democrats see illegal immigrants as a way to propagate voting supporters. While I find Mr. Trump’s character off-putting, I find his policies enlightening and supportive of individual liberties and free-market economics. Vice President Joe Biden once claimed that Republicans want to put Blacks “back in chains!” But do not policies of progressive Democrats serve to chain Blacks and other minorities to dependency on government? There is nothing racist in encouraging family formations and self-sufficiency.
Which party supports “cancel culture,” with its, microaggressions, intersectionality, trigger warnings and safe places, where cancelling events deemed “hurtful” or “unsafe” has become the norm? Which party has promoted identity politics that encourages separation, which divides not unites? Which party has embraced censorship at colleges and universities, which denies free speech by preventing speakers of opinions contrary to the standards taught?
Epithets such as “You’re a racist!” are the refuge of the unoriginal, mean and the ignorant. Those who use such words refuse to debate issues on their merits; they substitute emotional outbursts for reasoned discussion. While Blacks represent 13% of the population, they account for almost 50% of murder victims. Yet, 89% of Black murder victims are killed by other Blacks. Have policies of appeasement succeeded? Was not racism a factor in Jussie Smollett’s faking a hate crime in Chicago a year ago?
There is no question that racists exist, but they are not exclusively conservatives. There is no question that prejudice is a characteristic of some on the right – bigots who feel their color makes them superior. But there is also no question that there are racists on the left – those who feel that Blacks cannot make it on their own, so must be made dependent on the goodness of government. One stems from ignorance and a feeling of inadequacy; the latter emerges from a supercilious attitude that the masses should defer their political opinions to their elite betters. Which is worse? The question is rhetorical, as all forms of racism are wrong. Martin Luther King once said: “I look to the day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” That is a goal worthy of us all.
The beauty of American democracy is the ladder up which people climb, when aspiration, dedication and talent move them, and down which they descend, when sloth, carelessness and ineptitude infest them. America is a country rich in diversity of ideas, as well as in its people and natural resources. According to the U.S. Census, in 1950, non-Hispanic Whites comprised 87.5% of the population. Today that number is closer to 60%. That percentage will continue to fall. From its inception, the United States was deemed a melting pot. People come from all over the world, from all nations, races and religions. They are drawn by the ideals laid out by the Founding Fathers and enunciated by Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, that this is a nation “of, by and for the people.” There is no aristocracy or embedded ruling class. In coming to the U.S., immigrants seek the liberty and freedom America offers. While they maintain some of their cultural ways, they throw off the yokes that bind them to other, less free, regimes and nations. They integrate into the American psyche.
When my interrogator spat out the words of venom that prompted this essay, he demonstrated his crudeness and illiteracy. It is actions not words that should concern us. Words are cheap (and often cowardly, as were those of my accuser). To stand up to false accusations, face opposition and confront reality requires fortitude. It is the challenge to which Martin Luther King referred to in the rubric that heads this essay; it demands a rational response. Ironically, many of those who utter such venom are themselves responsible for the cultural schism that divides our country. A hash-tag society that promotes identity politics and victimization divides not unites. The consequence is a new form of segregation. Far better to treat people equally, and let the aspirant, regardless of race, religion, sex, or ideology achieve the American dream.
Comments are closed.
