Posted on 07/03/2020 7:11:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
“While we write and print millions of words about race in America, why is it still so hard to have a truly respectful, decent, and humble dialogue about perhaps the most complicated and contentious issue in American life?” asks David French in his Dispatch article “American Racism: We’ve Got So Very Far to Go.” Yet he does not mention in his story of personal change the elephant in the room: the Black Lives Matter movement’s radical cultural hegemony.
Establishment Republicans made the same mistake by ignoring the movement’s radical premise: that at its core, America is rotten and systemically racist, and thus woke Americans must rebuild and reimagine the country from the ground up.
Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney marched with the Black Lives Matter movement, and former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley tweeted, “It’s important to understand that the death of George Floyd was personal and painful for many. In order to heal, it needs to be personal and painful for everyone.”
Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell admirably tweeted, “Our republic can survive a pandemic. It can survive civil unrest. But ideas and deliberation are our foundation. America cannot be America if civil disagreement becomes a contradiction in terms. Anti-speech silencing tactics are a cancer in a free and open society.” But aside from McConnell and Sen. Josh Hawley, few Republican leaders denounced BLM’s central claim.
Maybe many Americans are willing to have a productive conversation about race. Maybe they want to respectfully question the merits of workplace diversity training programs, for example. But the risk in participating far outweighs any reward.
A Vermont school principal was placed on administrative leave for writing on Facebook, “I firmly believe that Black Lives Matter, but I DO NOT agree with the coercive measures taken to get to this point across; some of which are falsified in an attempt to prove a point.” Tim Gordon, a Catholic high school theology teacher, was fired for comparing Black Lives Matter to a terrorist organization. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology Catholic chaplain was forced to resign after sending an email in which he said Floyd had “not lived a virtuous life.”
Paul Krugman and a number of prominent academics called for the firing of University of Chicago professor of economics Harald Uhlig. On Twitter, Uhlig criticized Black Lives Matter, saying, “Too bad, but #blacklivesmatter per its core organization @Blklivesmatter just torpedoed itself, with is full-fledge support of #defundthepolice.” Krugman fired back, “Yet another privileged white man who evidently can’t control his urge to belittle the concerns of those less fortunate.”
No one outside conservative media can criticize Black Lives Matter without being fired or ostracized, so how can we expect the average American to chime in for a productive dialogue?
Furthermore, American corporations reinforce BLM’s cultural sway, driving conversation in one direction. The biggest corporations have donated millions to Black Lives Matter and related organizations. Diversity consulting has become fashionable.
Nike released a solemn advertisement morally blackmailing citizens who do not stand up for, or kneel to, Black Lives Matter. MTV changed its logo for LGBT Pride Month and Black Lives Matter. Even the children’s network Nickelodeon interrupted broadcasting to air a social justice message. Indoctrination doesn’t begin on college campuses with activist professors; it begins with “SpongeBob Squarepants” reruns.
Hollywood celebrities also play their part. Like corporations, celebrities donate millions of dollars and share videos of infamous antisemite Louis Farrakhan with their countless social media followers. Black filmmaker and producer Ava DuVernay, who directed “Selma,” warned white men in Hollywood that questioning social justice dogma could result in unemployment. “Kindly remember,” she wrote, “bias can go both ways.”
It’s baffling that any Republican leaders or conservative voices could think it is time to have a chat with Democrats about race relations. That discussion would never include conservatives or anyone else who dissents. Black Lives Matter is not interested in making fact-based arguments. Its activists win arguments through social coercion.
Meanwhile, the most important institutions driving American culture already picked a side. Their leaders kowtowed to the Black Lives Matter movement.
Maybe conservatives should be asking ourselves: How do we defeat identity politics and multiculturalism with the legal and political mechanisms at our disposal, and how do we erect our own cultural institutions to push back against corporate America and Hollywood’s influence?
Contra French, polite conversation cannot exist while powerful cultural forces erode the bedrock upon which this country was founded: the Constitution and the rights enshrined therein. When we form a strategy to defeat these forces and succeed, then we can talk about race relations without capitulating to radicals. Otherwise, no humble, decent, and respectful conversation about any contentious political issue will ever occur again in this country.
Citizens are targeted for their political views. Our American founding has been slandered. The last thing we should do is turn the other cheek.
Good article. Anyone who actually tries to have an honest conversation about the radical politics sweeping our cities is immediately branded a White Supremacist. I’m not playing that game.
The topic that cannot be discussed. “Shut Up!” they explained.
Honest dialogue is not part of this attempted coup! Nor is honesty itself. Remember, rip van biden already said they’ll choose truth over fact. And they’ll tell you what truth to believe.
The Left’s discussion on racism: “Shut up, you racist!”
When the Left asks for a “dialog” or a “conversation”, they mean only one thing. They want to lecture you while you silently listen.
But it doesn’t end there. After the lecture you must agree with everything you were told. Even a 99% agreement isn’t good enough.
Leftist: Do you agree with what I just said?
Citizen: I agree with everything except the part about removing Lincoln’s statue.
Leftist: You filthy racist!
“Honest dialogue” = you listening and agreeing with them. It’s meant that for years.
After the statues come down, military installation names are changed, white virtue is signaled, police are defunded, etc., is it likely, as a result, that drugs will disappear from their street corners or education will be more valued or crime rates will decline or the teenage illegitimacy rates will recede or more black fathers will stay in the home? Doubtful when 95% of their effort is looking for blame for the dysfunction in the community outside the community while only 5% is spent on realistically trying to confront the root causes and toxic values within the community that cause it.
Great article but it still advocates playing on their turf.
I find in general, black people are willing to talk honestly about it.
It’s the white liberals that hurl insults and call you ‘racist’.
I joke that the Black radicals, are just white liberals in a black body.
I have no interest in a “national dialogue” about anything.
This is NOT about "dialogue" or "compromise.
These idiots don't even know what some of these statues represent.
see my tagline....
Or people who celebrate that the sum accomplishment of the Civil Rights movement was that black people can say a word that white people can’t.
Noticed this on other boards and forums
That “honest discussion about race“ that Eric Holder said but never followed up on for obvious reasons never happens because liberals in general and blacks in particular deny any defects in their culture behavior and words
They are always right always victims and always with their hands out
Any discussion would have to include basic biological and cognitive indicators based in genetics.
And THAT will never be allowed to take place. So no chance of an honest dialogue.
Easier to just blame whitey.
My approach when people say that we should have an honest conversation about race.
Do not argue. Ask. It goes something like this:
Q “Why do we need a conversation?”
A So people can learn.
Q Wouldn’t a lecture be better for learning than a conversation?
A1: Yes.
If so, then we do not need a conversation. Thank you.
A2: (something like this) People learn better from conversations.
Q: So people on both sides would say things that are right, and then they would both agree? In that case, what’s the point of a conversation?
A: No people would voice their views and then other people could show them where they are wrong and help them learn.
Q: OK give me an example of something that you believe is wrong, but it would be good for people to verbalize it.
A variation of this approach in Constitutional discussions: give me an example of a government policy that you believe to be wrong but if voters voted for it that’s their prerogative and the court would have no reason to strike it down.
“Establishment Republicans made the same mistake by ignoring the movement’s radical premise”
That’s the history of the established Republicans. At the first sign of Democrats being aggressive the they faint until things calm down again. Then they blather about what should have been done.
I believe you may be right, but the ones I see and hear on my local media don’t act that way.
The racism card is over played due to the election honesty has little to do with the actions going on.
Felons slackers and every small time crooks hate cops because the get busted time to realize the gravy train is derailed.
Racism is what some want it to be facts or not.
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.