Far from being the bastion of tolerance and inclusivity, for decades the progressive Left has weaponized such virtues for their own narrow ends. They have employed identity politics and cancel culture to silence, chastise, and even ruin any who dare trespass upon or challenge their narratives and schemes. It’s no wonder that, increasingly, minorities are moving toward conservatism. As shown by the results of this past presidential election, it’s becoming clear that many are simply fed up with the bigotry and prejudice promoted by the legacy media and popular culture which drives various agendas of the Left. Here are six such examples.
Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility” is an exercise in dehumanization
The underlying premise of Robin DiAngelo’s work, “White Fragility,” is fundamentally grounded in a form of prejudice the Left refuses to acknowledge. It’s a monolithic indictment of an entire group of people premised exclusively in the superficialities of color and the inherently cultural and non-scientific notion of “race.” As such, DiAngelo considers “all whites…complicit in racism by virtue of their skin color,” according to Chloé Valdary of City Journal.
If DiAngelo’s vapid assessment and generalizations were ascribed to any other group of people, her work would be considered patently racist and any further discussions on the matter would be enthusiastically rejected.
Unfortunately, DiAngelo has crafted her prejudice in such a deceptive manner that it disallows any legitimate critique of it, creating a “racial double bind” of sorts. “To argue” against DiAngelo “is racist” and only “proves that the label fits.”
Fortunately, John McWhorter’s critique of “White Fragility” in The Atlantic is the perfect antidote to DiAngelo’s intellectualized gibberish. As a lauded black scholar, McWhorter is automatically exempt from DiAngelo’s “racial double bind” by her very own logic, unless she wishes to exert her own “white privilege” upon McWhorter.
McWhorter takes a less obvious but far more damning approach to “White Fragility.” He insists that DiAngelo’s work is “dehumanizing” and full of “condescension” toward people of color. He refers to it as a “racist tract” that “diminishes Black people in the name of dignifying us.”
“In 2020—as opposed to 1920—I neither need nor want anyone to muse on how whiteness privileges them over me,” McWhorter continues. “Nor do I need wider society to undergo teachings in how to be exquisitely sensitive about my feelings. I see no connection between DiAngelo’s brand of reeducation and vigorous, constructive activism in the real world on issues of import to the Black community. And I cannot imagine that any Black readers could willingly submit themselves to DiAngelo’s ideas while considering themselves adults of ordinary self-regard and strength. Few books about race have more openly infantilized Black people than this supposedly authoritative tome… Or simply dehumanized us.”
The unabashed racism of Karl Marx
Though the openly Marxist leaders of Black Lives Matter are quick to assail the Founding Fathers as “racists,” they choose to be willfully ignorant of the virulent racism that informed Marx.
Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors told Time that her “intellectual influences” draw from “Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong.” Cullers also claimed “in a…video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are ‘trained Marxists’ – making clear their movement’s ideological foundation,” according to The New York Post.
In fact, the very paradigm that underpins much of the progressive Left in the form of Critical Theory is intrinsically Marxist. Yet, his abject racism is presented as a mere afterthought, if ever mentioned at all.
“Marx is a hero to many labor union leaders and civil rights organizations,” noted scholar, Walter E. Williams, recently wrote, “including leftist groups like Black Lives Matter, antifa and some Democratic Party leaders. It is easy to be a Marxist if you know little of his life…What most people do not know is that Marx was a racist and an anti-Semite.”
For further proof, one need only read the very words of Marx himself. Here’s an excerpt from a letter to Friedrich Engels rife with exhausting prejudice:
“The Jewish n***** Lassalle who, I’m glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation. The chap would sooner throw money down the drain than lend it to a ‘friend,’ even though his interest and capital were guaranteed.”
Chelsea Handler “reminds” rapper 50 Cent that he’s black
Prior to the presidential election, Curtis Jackson — better known as 50 Cent — seemed to show support for President Trump and his fiscal policies.
In response, comedian Chelsea Handler openly chastised the famous rapper’s decision, asking him “if he knew what race he was,” according to The New York Post.
She then went on The Jimmy Fallon Show and stated that she “had to remind him that he was a black person, so he can’t vote for Donald Trump.”
This is the same Chelsea Handler who states in her 2019 Netflix documentary entitled, “Hello Privilege. It’s Me, Chelsea,” that she is “the beneficiary of white privilege” and hopes to find what her “responsibility is moving forward in the world that we live in today where race is concerned,” according to Vice.
Yet, here she is, disqualifying a black voice because of his very racial identity and the possibility that he dared to show support for President Trump. Handler’s accusation is very much the hallmark of the kind of arrogant racism that informs the Left.
The bias against Asian-American students at Ivy League schools
Ivy League schools such as Yale and Harvard — now seen as the epicenters of progressive thought — have allegedly been discriminating against Asian-American students for decades. In 2018, the National Review reported that “while the Asian-American undergraduate population at elite universities that do not take race into account in admissions has soared since the 1990s, it has hovered around 20 percent at Ivy League schools.”
Such disparities in admissions led to a lawsuit from a “group called Students for Fair Admissions…alleging that [Harvard] engages in unconstitutional racial discrimination against Asians in its admissions process.”
Recently, a federal appeals court ruled against Students for Fair Admissions, though the case is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court, according to a recent piece by Zachary Evans of the National Review.
“The case has been followed closely by supporters and opponents of race-based affirmative action policies,” Evans reports. “In the event that plaintiffs attempt to bring their suit before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Court agrees to hear arguments, plaintiffs will argue their case before a 6-3 conservative majority of justices on the bench.”
The Justice Department is also investigating “alleged discrimination against Asian-American and white applicants to Yale University” though much may change in the coming months with the transition to the Biden administration and its decidedly progressive bent.
“Internalized racism” is “Uncle Tom 2.0”
“Internalized racism” is a somewhat novel term often bandied about by the Left toward minorities who refuse to tow the progressive line. Essentially, it’s an elaborate attempt to intellectualize the term, “Uncle Tom,” to appear more palatable to the general public.
Instead of referring to the likes of Candace Owens or Larry Elders in such derisive and obviously racist terms, many on the Left argue that such conservative thinkers “suffer” from “internalized racism,” usually beyond their control. Such fatiguing condescension is pervasive among the Left, used as another method to silence the opposing views of many conservative minority voices.
Worse, it removes all sense of agency from those accused of “internalized racism,” reducing them to subjugated automatons who — once again — must be “liberated” by the progressive Left.
Donna K. Bivens of Racial Equity Tools seeks to define “internalized racism” in the following manner:
“As people of color are victimized by racism, we internalize it. That is, we develop ideas, beliefs, actions and behaviors that support or collude with racism. This internalized racism has its own systemic reality and its own negative consequences in the lives and communities of people of color. More than just a consequence of racism, then, internalized racism is a systemic oppression in reaction to racism that has a life of its own. In other words, just as there is a system in place that reinforces the power and expands the privilege of white people, there is a system in place that actively discourages and undermines the power of people and communities of color and mires us in our own oppression.”
Bivens adds that “individuals, institutions and communities of color are often unconsciously and habitually rewarded for supporting white privilege” and that “internalized racism is a systemic oppression.”
This very definition of “internalized racism” is working with two specious assumptions presented as objective facts: Namely, that “white privilege” and “systemic racism” are realities, rather than nebulous constructs rooted in Critical Theory and other far Left paradigms.
In effect, when the likes of Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo employ the term “internalized racism,” it’s meant to silence any opposition or meaningful critique of their extremist views.
“You ain’t Black” if you voted for Trump, according to Joe Biden
During his election campaign, Joe Biden insinuated that minorities who support Trump are betraying themselves and their very identity. In a May 2020 interview for The Breakfast Club, Biden stated in no uncertain terms that “if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”
Regardless of the intent behind Biden’s comment, it remains patently racist. That such a reckless statement didn’t cause a greater uproar, particularly among minorities, only reinforces the idea that the legacy media is shaping and controlling the political narrative. Had President Trump made such a remark, for example, he would have been widely condemned as an open racist.
Despite the Left’s constant attempt to malign him as a racist, Trump actually improved his standing among minorities in the recent presidential election. This bodes well for the future of conservatism.
“If the poll is an accurate reflection of final results,” the National Review reported, “Trump will have improved his support with black and Latino voters relative to 2016, when non-white voters comprised 21 percent of his vote share.”
Clearly, far more is at play as more and more minorities move toward conservatism, even in the wake of such meaningless accusations from the likes of Biden.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.