Posts Tagged ‘Race Relations’

Black Like Her

June 17, 2015

In 1959, John Howard Griffin used makeup and medication to alter his appearance enough to pass as a black man in order to understand what it was like being black in America. He then wrote about his experience in his highly acclaimed book, “Black Like Me”, initiating a much needed dialogue on racial conditions in America.

Today, we find Rachel Dolezal passing herself off as a black woman in order to…well…nobody really knows why but she has initiated a much different dialogue. Masquerading as a black woman, Dolezal ended up president of the NAACP chapter in Spokane, Washington and says that her being “transracial” (whatever that means) became obvious at a very young age when she naturally preferred using brown crayons instead of peach crayons for skin color.

The national president of the NAACP says “The NAACP is not concerned with the racial identity of our leadership” but it is highly doubtful Dolezal would have become a chapter president had her true race been known. She has been identifying herself as black since 2007, five years after graduating from historically black Howard University. Ironically, she filed suit against the school while attending, claiming she was being racially discriminated against because she was white. Perhaps losing that suit traumatized her into becoming “transracial”.

It is more likely that Rachel Dolezal is just infected by the progressive PC madness sweeping the country, the same PC madness that compelled MSNBC’s ultra-progressive host Melissa Harris-Perry’s foolish attempt to legitimize Dolezal’s fantasy. Melissa seriously asked if “there is actually a different category of blackness” or if someone could be “trans-black”, much like her progressive hero Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is trans-sexual.

No, there is no different category of blackness, there is no such thing as being “trans-black”, and “transracial” is a manufactured, meaningless term. What we have here is a mentally disturbed woman; a PC agenda favoring individuals over the common good; and an irrational MSNBC host.

David J. Hentosh

Manipulating Children

February 12, 2015

There is a new Brownie troop formed in Oakland called the “Radical Brownies” which consists of 8 to 10 year-old girls learning and spreading social justice. Co-founder Marilyn Hollinquest says they are not telling the girls what to think, but listen to some of the things these children say and see if you buy that claim:

“White policeman are killing black young folks such as women, men and children”. “Mike Brown. He was shot because he didn’t do nothing. Only the police officer shot him because of his skin color.” “It’s really good for me because it brings out who I am”.

That doesn’t sound very much like independent thoughts of children. It sounds a lot more like brainwashing and propagandizing. These children have been taught that the police are racists and the enemy of the black community and it can only be a matter of time before hatred of the police begins to take hold. Who else will these children begin to hate “without being told”?

Hollingquest has these girls wearing berets similar to the Black Panthers’ berets because she feels it is “appropriate”, and the first badge the girls earned by marching in a Martin Luther King Jr. parade displays a fist and the words “Black Lives Matter”. Hollingquest says that “Kids already understand fairness and unfairness” but a child’s true understanding of “fairness” needs mature guidance and the type of guidance Hollingquest is providing does not seem appropriate.

We pride ourselves on being better than radical Islamic terrorists who brainwash their children to hate Jews and to kill anyone who does not believe as they do. The “Radical Brownies” are certainly a far cry from that and social justice is not akin to Sharia Law, but this does not feel like a good direction for children and it seems to many to be manipulative, abusive, and divisive. Nothing positive for race relations can result from this.

Children need to be children and they shouldn’t be used as puppets by adults with an agenda.

David J. Hentosh

Questions to Ponder This Week

October 8, 2014

Why is Jesse Jackson going to Texas to talk to the family of the Ebola victim? Is he a doctor? Is Ebola a racial problem? Or is it just because there are cameras?

Why did former CIA director Leon Panetta remain silent on Benghazi when he now admits that he knew from the “very beginning” (as we all did) that Benghazi was a “terrorist attack on our compound”? Was he silenced? Did he fear the administration? Or was he just waiting to reveal it in his book?

Why was Oprah surprised and upset when actress and singer Raven-Symone said she considers herself “American,” not “African-American”? Shouldn’t Oprah applaud such a post-racial idea? Does Oprah fear a color-blind society? Or does she believe that all black women must toe the liberal line?

Why does FBI director James Comey believe Americans fighting with terrorists in Syria are “entitled to come back” unless their passport is revoked? Is he just being politically correct? Does treason no longer exist? Or does he fear offending the left by being too judgmental?

Why does anyone care about Jimmy Carter’s criticism of Obama’s Middle East policies? Is it because Carter was such an expert on Middle East solutions? Or is it because compared to Obama, Carter is starting to look like a competent president?

With over 600 school districts (and counting) across the country dropping out of the school lunch program, why hasn’t it been overhauled or removed? Is it because Michelle Obama is a nutritional expert? Or is it because the liberal agenda requires unconditional support for the Obama’s and cannot admit failure?

Why is the producer of an anti-Obamacare movie being audited by the IRS? Is it just a coincidence? Or is it because the mantra “there is no scandal at the IRS” worked and the IRS is back to business as usual?

David J. Hentosh

Al Sharpton’s Stunning Hypocrisy

July 26, 2013

It doesn’t get any more asinine or hypocritical than this: Al Sharpton, the man whose only occupation has been as a race monger blaming Whitey for everything wrong in the black community, is accusing right-wing pundits of stoking racial fears to boost ratings. You can’t make this stuff up.

Sharpton’s MSNBC show has given him a venue to promote his personal brand of racism, keep racial tensions high, and advertise the many protests he organizes around the country. If there is a camera, you will find Sharpton pompously pontificating on the racial injustice he will find under every bed.

Sharpton is a self-proclaimed, and loudly proclaimed, “leader” of a black community that never voted him in as leader of anything. In fact, Sharpton has never been voted into public office. He was the court jester candidate for the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, recognized by all as having no chance whatsoever, but good for a laugh or two.

The laughter is over and should have ended long ago, back in 1987, when Al was found liable by a jury for making defamatory statements against white men he was sure assaulted and raped 15-yr-old Tawana Brawley. Even after Brawley was found to have fabricated the entire story as a hoax, Al continued to proudly scream racist venom, never apologizing to the men whose name he smeared forever.

For Al Sharpton, there is no such thing as a guilty black man, an innocent white man, or a non-racial event. He sees things only in black and white and has made a good living doing so. Therefore, for him to accuse white pundits of doing ‘exactly’ what his entire life has been centered around is ludicrous, even if there was any truth whatsoever in the accusations – and there isn’t.

That’s Al: Ludicrous, ridiculous, and pompous. He anchors the black community in racial animosity and never advocates personal responsibility. When white pundits do so, they are attacked viciously by Al who learned well a thing or two from Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals.

Sharpton is dangerous and should have been put out to pasture long ago. The black community is not well-served by his buffoonery; nor is civility and journalism.

David J. Hentosh

Media the Only One Found Guilty in Zimmerman Trial

July 10, 2013

By now, it is obvious that George Zimmerman should not have been brought up on the charges he is facing and that there is no credible evidence to refute his claim of self-defense. If a guilty verdict is somehow still reached by the jury, it will mirror the outcome of the O.J. Simpson trial where liberal guilt and obsession with race triumphed over truth, justice, and the American Way.

An acquittal would mean Zimmerman is not guilty of murder charges brought about hastily because of pressure from the media. The media overwhelmingly found Zimmerman guilty of being a racist without knowing any of the facts and demanded that he be arrested, tried, and convicted – NOW. That’s how irrational obsession works and the Zimmerman trial found the media guilty, once again, of that obsession.

When (If?) Zimmerman is acquitted, the media will also be guilty of causing the inevitable riots that will occur. The black community was convinced by the liberal media, celebrities, and so-called “community leaders” that Zimmerman is a racist who shot Trayvon Martin simply because he was black. Even now, after no evidence of that has surfaced, it is the predominant theme the media is broadcasting and it is the match that has already lit the fire.

The media will point to those riots as proof of the racial tensions that still infect this country – the same tensions the media is guilty of sustaining with their obsession. That guilt also includes treating the entire black community as victims and making sure they stay that way, believing they are incapable of fending for themselves.

Wanting desperately to shoe-horn this into a racial crime right from the start, the media invented a new race, “White Hispanic”, to overcome the lack of an evil white man as perpetrator. In doing so, the media broke new ground in denial and proved they are guilty of blind, partisan stupidity. But then, we already had plenty enough proof of that.

Whatever the final outcome, the Zimmerman trial already provided a guilty verdict for the media and it is up to the American people to deliver a sentence.

David J. Hentosh

Nutter is Nutty on Racism

March 19, 2013

An article in Philadelphia Magazine entitled “Being White in Philly” spurred Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter into a stereotypical response that actually proved one of the points the article intended to make: White people’s views on race and racism are not welcome and should not be heard – ever.

Journalist Robert Huber’s interviews with white people living in Philadelphia neighborhoods did contain some racist remarks, but that is a result of candid responses – and reality. Are those responses supposed to be censored? Is truth no longer allowed to “set you free” lest someone take offense?

It seems Mayor Nutter and others believe so. The title of the article was enough to elicit accusations of racism from some, simply because white people are believed to only have racist opinions. Racism has been determined to be a one-way street and all problems in the black community have been deemed to be the fault of white people. So sayeth the Progressives – forevermore.

Some of the responses in the article touched on things that are uncomfortable to hear, especially for those believing in total victimhood. That doesn’t make them less real and it certainly doesn’t make them unprintable. In today’s society, however, it makes them taboo because they did not follow the PC rules of engagement which dictate that white people have no feelings, opinions, or sensitivities concerning race.

According to the magazine’s editor, Tom McGrath, the point of the article was “to get a conversation going about race”. Conversations require two sides and those of Nutter’s ilk still demand race and racism remain one-sided. Nutter said that “Philadelphia Magazine has sunk to a new low” and his knee-jerk reaction was to call on the Philadelphia Human Relations Commission “…to conduct an inquiry into racial issues and attitudes in the city, and to decide whether the magazine and the writer should be rebuked.” Of course, the commission agreed with the mayor.

One could reasonably argue that the magazine article already conducted an inquiry into racial attitudes in the city. Then, again, nothing reasonable seems to be penetrating the stereotypical race barrier in Nutterland.

David J. Hentosh