Posted on 06/11/2010 11:02:53 PM PDT by South40
Several weeks ago, after a column critical of President Barack Obama, a woman wrote to say that she agreed with me. Then she said something I certainly did not agree with, bemoaning the fact that, thanks to Obama, her grandchildren would grow up with a “different image of what a president looks like” than the one she had a child.
It’s tempting to lump that reader in with the pitiful souls – some in the tea party movement – who resent the idea of a black president because they’re terrified at how fast the country is changing and unsure of where they fit in the new landscape.
Yet, I sense, there is more to it. The woman was desperately trying to hold on to something, a Mount Rushmore image in her mind of what a president looks like. That image had changed in one election, and she wanted to change it back.
Which brings to mind the latest ugly controversy to come out of Arizona. This time, the ruckus isn’t about immigration. It’s about pigmentation.
In the town of Prescott – which is, according to census estimates, 93 percent white but where the schools have a sizable Hispanic population – artists hired to paint a mural at a school to promote a “Go on Green” environmental campaign got into trouble when they veered off into other colors. The mural features portraits of four children (actual students) and depicts a Hispanic boy as the main figure.
The depiction angered City Councilman Steve Blair, who hosted a radio talk show. Blair wasn’t even sure what he was angry about. He mistakenly assumed that the Hispanic boy was African-American, and this really concerned him. “To depict the biggest picture on the building as a black person,” he told his audience, “I would have to ask the question: Why?” Blair suggested that it had to do with “the guy that’s in the White House.” The host incessantly bashed the mural in a campaign to remove it. R.E. Wall, the lead artist on the project, noticed that every day for two months, during the time that Blair was on the radio, motorists would drive by the mural and yell out racial epithets. Such as: “Take that (n-word) off that wall.” They didn’t care that children were present.
So far this is just a story about ignorance, hatred and fear. But what turned it tragic is that spineless school officials caved in to those dark impulses. Principal Jeff Lane, who was obviously rattled by the angry complaints he received, ordered the artists to lighten the face of the Hispanic child.
You read that right. Lighten the face of the child. Eager to put their best face forward, some people in Prescott took it as a given that the best face is a white one. Initially, Lane defended this offensive directive “from an artistic point of view.”
But when word got out and other members of the community protested at the site of the mural, Lane reversed course and told the crowd: “We made a mistake.” Leaving the artistry to the artists, Lane said the mural was fine as it is.
However, Arizona – a state where I once lived – is not fine as it is.
This is the place that gave us state-sponsored vigilantism; having decided the authorities weren’t doing their job, the state organized a posse to do it for them. The result: an odious law that transforms local cops into pseudo immigration agents. This is the state where education officials barred from teaching English courses those instructors who have heavy accents. And this is the state that banned ethnic studies in elementary and secondary schools because of fears that such classes promote “resentment toward a race or class of people.”
And to think there are still those who will foolishly try to argue that Arizona’s antics have nothing to do with racism or ethnocentrism. You can only bury your head in the sand for so long, and there is not enough sand in all the deserts of the Grand Canyon State to hide from the fact that, for many Arizonans, the country is changing too fast and they’re determined to resist it.
Arizona needs to get a grip. It is making the wrong moves for the wrong reasons. Its citizens should look in the mirror and confront what they’ve become, as unpleasant as the answer may be.
Ruben Navarrette is in a state of denial. I wonder if anyone has checked his “peppers” lately. Hmmmmmm.
What is this jerk’s email?
They want “Equality”?
Okay - when I break the law, I’m punished.
He’s one of the stupidest people this side of the moon. I knew who it was before I saw the byline.
Navarrette can be reached at ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com
From a San Diego newspaper is it? Well that makes up my mind, no more San Diego summer vacations for me or my family. But don’t worry SD, you’ll be getting a bunch of new ?visitors” soon in the form of the hundreds of thousands of welfare and social services “takers” Arizona is sending your way.
You can go to the site and hit “Email Rueben” next to his mug shot. The comments there are hilarious and worth reading. It appears that Rueben is a lot dumber than he looks.
The publisher recently sent all subscribes an email asking for input on how to make their paper a better paper. A majority said less bias and more honest reporting. I'd imagine the numbers who said they should cease employing this racist a-hole was large also.
The State looks great. Better by the day.
This Federal Administration’s deteriorating intelligence :
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/7043040.html
Ruben is one big BARF who used to write for the AZ Republic.
That’s why I recognize that name. Thanks!
Thanks for that link FRiend. It made me smile.
He’s well known in San Diego for being a racist shill for all things ILLEGAL alien. He’s also part of the reason why the UT can’t sell a paper. If I were a betting man I’d say his days at that paper are numbered.
He's not black, Ruben, he's White and Arab. There's not enough Black in him to legally include it on on a Federal form.
Like everything else about him, his "Blackness" is an illusion.
Yeah, actually, you’re right. Liberal so-called “thinkers” try my patience sometimes. Setting businessman against businessman with boycotts only makes the leftists happy. (Though they will have cause to weep soon enough.)
Please make note. This article and authot are BS.
As is the once worthwhile and readable publication he writes for.
His racist views are not well received by most readers. I really don't know how he manages to keep his job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.