- Text smaller
- Text bigger
If America were as racist as her mostly internal critics insist, then every politician would eagerly seek out the “racist” label. They would all, as one wing of the Democratic Party did to its sorrow, label themselves “Dixiecrats” and campaign vigorously on a platform of returning to those “thrilling days of yester-year.”
If that were the case today, the mainstream media would have been Barack Obama’s worst nightmare and would have disparaged his campaign worse than they regularly demean conservative blacks today (i.e., Rice, Thomas, Steele, Cain). If you think the scrutiny given to Bush II and McCain in the last race, including the challenge to McCain’s birth certificate and eligibility to be president, was fierce, just try and imagine the scrutiny that would have been given to an unknown “negro” who allegedly spent from $800,000 to $1.2 million in legal fees on a hidden past.
The reason the race card is used relentlessly by Democrats, liberals and so-called “civil rights leaders” is because the overwhelming majority of America is clearly anti-racist. Let the racist tag appear to be legitimate and, to put it mildly, the candidate is toast. Liberals and Democratic Party strategists are well aware of the anti-racial position of most Americans. As a result, they make every attempt to apply the racist moniker in a dual fashion.
First, they know if they can make the charge stick, it spells the political death of any candidate for elected office. No “proud member” of the KKK or a member of the White Citizens Council (since the 1940s) has a prayer of being elected to office as a confirmed racist.
The second reason, however, has been more effective. The charge of “racist” or “racism” is used to generate and perpetuate white guilt. Liberals, especially in the academic community, are extremely adept at utilizing the race card. Americans, as a general rule, are extremely fair-minded and so strongly oppose racism that they bend way over backward to avoid any hint of behavior that could be construed as racist.
Many Americans who, for the most part, insist on equity, justice and common sense, however, seem to abandon these principles when it comes to white guilt. A glaring example of this is affirmative action. Many readers will remember Bakke vs. UC Davis Medical School; Bakke was denied admission in favor of several other students, although he was eminently more qualified. Bakke’s problem? He was white. Bakke sued, however, based on the 14th Amendment, and won. The U.S. Supreme Court decided, enough of this foolishness, let him in.
Affirmative action, which has become the driving force behind a new social reengineering scheme, was originally designed to prevent discrimination against minorities in government-funded projects. The new use, however, allows race to once again be used as a determinant, and this will inevitably lead again to hatred, hostility and violence.
Interestingly enough, most Americans are less than enthusiastic in their acceptance of these government set-asides. The majority of America supports opportunity but questions giveaway programs. They tolerate them, motivated in many cases by white guilt (“blacks were unfairly treated”) but mostly by a sense of fair play.
A little known truth is, in answer to the question of using race or ethnicity as a deciding factor in hiring, promoting or admitting to college, a majority of blacks chose ability as determined by test scores. Furthermore, 90 percent of blacks rejected admitting a black applicant over a white applicant with SAT scores 25 points higher. (Learn more from my book, “Black Yellowdogs,” at BenKinchlow.com.)
Let’s face facts: 21st-century America is an entirely different country!
Please try to wrap your mind around this. Not very many years ago, I drank from a “colored” water fountain after leaving our “separate-but-equal” segregated school, rode in the “colored” section of a city bus on the way to a movie and sat in a “for coloreds only” balcony. I (along with most Americans back then) could not possibly in my wildest imaginings have envisioned a President Barack Hussein Obama, much less the possibility of a President Herman (“too poor to afford a middle name”) Cain, another black president!
On a recent TV show examining several countries’ treatment of their citizens, two women (both of whom just happened to be black) were questioned about life in America. One had lived in America all of her life, and the other had just arrived here (legally) and was fighting desperately to bring her husband here, as well. The woman born here said, in effect, “America stinks. If England would take me, I would leave tomorrow.” The new immigrant said, “I love America! It’s the only place in the world where you can start poor and end up a princess!” (or the black co-host of a nationally syndicated, internationally broadcast television program).
Or, perhaps ala Herman Cain, a living embodiment of the American dream – start poor and possibly end up president?
Off hand, I’d say times have changed.
God bless America.