Some of the comments from WaPo are good:
“When you’re doing this from a position of entitlement”
What entitlement? If he was in a position of entitlement, by definition, his poem would have been published the first time under his real name. The fact was that he was anything *but* in a position of entitlement; given that his poem was judged one of the best in the nation that year, but he still couldn’t get it published, it’s clear that he was being discriminated against because of his name, not entitled by it.
The idea that white people, especially white males, can never claim to be the targets of bigotry or prejudice, simply because they are white, is itself an extreme position of bigotry. Here we have a clear case of indefensible discrimination based solely on race, and yet the victim is somehow the guilty one for exposing it, because of his race. The only reason seems to be because the bigots are embarrassed by having been exposed for what they actually are.
Either that, or they’re claiming that Asians are the entitled ones, who deserve to be published even if they can’t write, simply because of they’re race, and he was wrong for stealing that entitlement. I’m still not sure which alternative is more racist, but either way, anyone who thinks the poet was the one in the wrong is clearly a racist bigot.
—Rob29
Yep. Anyone not seeing we are not wearing white triangle, gay marriage pink triangle or kosher badges, is a fool.
Our government and culture are definitely pre-nazi
This says a lot more about the publishers being racist than him. Excellent experiment.
The idiocy of the liberal definition of racism, tying it to power, is that Caucasians wouldn’t be discriminated against in hiring, scholarships, school discipline and crime reporting IF THEY WERE IN POWER.