Maybe I can clear something up for our visitors who have become entangled in the recent long discussion. You see, there is a significant strand of modern liberal thought which is deeply vested in the notion that white America is inexorably racist. The only way this condition can be cured, the theory goes, is through major structural reforms.
As most of us know, the whole “major structural reform” concept is a dear one to the left, particularly if it mitigates against anything that might be considered remotely “traditional” about our nation and our culture.
You know, our horrible, patriarchical society where sex is deeply repressed (funny how people have kept getting themselves reproduced, though!), our values such as personal self-sufficiency and personal responsibility are unfair, and where the whole dirty thing was basically born out of the sin of slavery.
For a number of reasons, many of those on the left are invested in this interpretation of reality. This is why our friends like Zimzo see bigots behind every tree. And in a sense, this is true, because in that reality being white means you are likely a bigot unless you are a leftist like Zimzo (although, as we have seen, Zimzo has had serious problems overcoming his own original sin in this regard.)
In fairness, we do need to allow that many “liberals” - whom I do not equate with “leftists,” which I might delve into further in another post - simply have not thought this one through. They are TAUGHT that whites are by nature bigots, and it may take time for them to overcome this cultural “bad parenting.”
Since our cherished yet ultimately misguided resident liberals are clamoring for someone, ANYONE to respond to the notorious post #9: Your eagerness touches me, so this time I will tell you what I think:
I think H.E. is seriously pissed off, but from all of his or her previous posts over the past two years I do not think the person is a racist at all. They demonstrate a fair amount of worldliness and have indicated they live in a multi-ethnic neighborhood - either Sterling or Manassas. I can tell you that both of these areas have been heavily Hispanic for a long time, but the you-know-what has only hit the fan in the past 7 years.
H.E. has in fact agreed with the thesis that illegal immigration has its worst impact on black Americans. I don’t see this individual shying away from brown or black people in the supermarket check out line.
The gist of H.E.’s axe to grind seems to me to be not a problem with who or what “they” are, but with what they DO - i.e. not demonstrating a willingness to play by the rules, jump through the proper hoops, and in general take the necessary steps to become American.
I have written about this phenomenon that migrant workers are akin to “renters” writ large in the context of our culture: They have no investment in it, and do not intend to become part of it, and therefore create their own enclaves.
(I know Zimzo argues that the lessons of 1908 should guide our policies today. I strongly disagree, but that is an argument for another post.)
I get the sense that H.E. has some direct experience with the subculture of illegal domestic employment. He or she has spoken with apparent personal knowledge about conditions in the public schools and social services agencies. If H.E. lives in one of the areas of Manassas with higher population of illegals, it does not surprise me that his or her rants might occasionally take on a tribal tone because I have heard the same thing from many other longtime residents who would not otherwise be classified as racist in the least.
I fall on the side of libertarianism when speech is involved, as you all know, and I think our nation is raising a generation (or two) of crybabies, so even though they were characterizations I would not use, I would not call H.E. a bigot. I’d just say H.E. is ranting, so deal with it.
But it is a fascinating topic how speech is interpreted nowadays when so many otherwise intelligent people are wearing bigot-seeking goggles, so thanks for asking.
