No matter how much time passes since the last of the American slaves became free, the feeling that minorities, specifically the descendants of American-held slaves, are owed reparations for their ancestors’ struggles remains a widely-held view.
Never mind the attainment of the Civil Rights movement’s goals. Ignore the enactment of race-based legislation granting minorities advantages in the form of educational opportunity.
Spoken or not, there is still an enduring belief within much of the black community that enough has not been done to ‘level the playing field’ of opportunity in America. The system still owes for the injustices of the past.
And also the perceived injustices of the present.
The perception of institutional racism is pervasive. An examination of the American legal and social landscape show that this perception is just that, a perception, not a tangible reality.
When challenged to name a law or institution that actively discriminates against any minority, champions of the race card simply cannot do so, eschewing logical arguments in favor of flawed platitudes about the black experience and false evidence that disproportionate incarceration rates necessarily indicate racist motives within the system.
Suggest that crime rates and the undeniably correlated arrest and incarceration rates may actually be higher in primarily minority-populated communities?
Racist!
Point out that government programs such as affirmative action, stipends for having babies, and other forms of ‘reparations’ for past discrimination actually have harmed minority communities in logical, tangible ways?
Well, you must be a bigot.
Point out the many examples of minorities who lament the idea of reparations- Clarence Thomas, for one- and they are explained away as Uncle Toms consumed with self-loathing and a desire to be white.
Examples of this monolithic, simplistic, and outdated logic when it comes to race can be found daily, and in the past ten or so years race-based grievances have reached a fever pitch.
To see just how far some are willing to take these grievances, look to college campuses. Like the most extreme stances of the day- wealth redistribution, cops as bounty hunters, Islam as a religion of peace, etc.- collegians seem to have proudly adopted these stances as fact, and are intent on seeing the fruits of these misguided stances enacted into law.
The latest example of this is the notion that not only descendants of slaves, but all African and Caribbean people who are born in or immigrate to the United States, should receive free tuition as reparations for “racial discrimination.”
Here’s the specific instance I am referencing if you are not already familiar:
“Western Kentucky University’s Student Government Association passed a resolution Tuesday supporting reparations for African-American students.
The resolution calls on WKU to create a task force to “assess the feasibility of test-optional admissions and geographically-weighted admissions,” citing research showing that using standardized test scores in the college admissions process “restricts the college opportunities for needy students, helping higher education perpetuate inequality.”
The resolution passed with a margin of 19-10, with one person declining to vote.
Per usual, the cucks that are left in charge of most state universities willingly adopted the notion, without mention of the cost to the rest of the student body, the slippery slope of such precedent setting, or the obvious lack of detail that such a proposal requires to be implemented in earnest.
Why would these administrators speak up?
After all, the mere suggestion that a minority group's opinion, let alone a formal proposal, may be fallible is just cause for a forced resignation.
Make no mistake about it, this proposal is not only grievance-based hardball- a cash grab that Jesse Jackson could be proud of- it is fraught with dozens of inconsistencies and half-cooked details that make it far from ready to enact.
But hey, you must keep the masses at bay. This is college, after all, not an arena for intellectual debate and well thought out ideas.
Tucker Carlson expertly laid out some of these logical inconsistencies in his interview with Andrea Ambam, the Western Kentucky student senator who co-opted the “resolution”:
Here’s a little hint when watching these sorts of interviews with people who hold these sorts of backward notions about the allegedly racist institution that is AmeriKKKa: when the interview subject begins their every answer with “So,” they are generally full of it. Andrea Ambam is no exception.
But for the sake of argument let’s consider Carlson’s questions, and Ambam’s answers, translated for space conservation and a thorough cutting of the BS.
Question: Would this (policy) apply to students’ families who were not here when slavery existed in the United States?
Answer: Yes.
A policy proposed in the name of reparations for slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation would be extended to people who not only did not face these injustices in America themselves, but also had no relatives subjected to this supposedly uniquely American oppression.
Makes sense.
Question: Those (immigrant) groups tend to do pretty well and in a lot of cases out-earn native born Americans, why would they be entitled to this also?
Answer: How dare you use the word entitled? (triggered!) I’m a daughter of immigrants, so I can speak on this uniquely...
Considering the widely-held adamancy that immigrants comprise the essential fabric of America, the “uniqueness” of the immigrant experience as a point of credibility sure seems to be used a lot. But anyway, back to the answer:
continued: African immigrants face their own discrimination (apparently unrelated to slavery), so they should get free tuition as reparations for slavery too. Even though they aren’t descendants of slaves.
So, to be clear, the policy is not actually to repair the damage done by slavery (Emancipation Proclamation, 1863) upon generations anywhere from 3 to 7 generations removed from the practice. It is reparations for…..being black. I guess. Let’s see if Andrea clears up more of the obvious flaws in this policy as it is outlined.
Question: How could you prove that your family was affected by Jim Crow or slavery?
Again, Andrea admitted that blackness, in combination with immigrant status from Africa or the Caribbean, is the standard for reparations. Not a connection to slavery. But anyway, it’s a fair question.
Answer: Well, these are minor details. It’s not hard to prove immigrants face racial discrimination.
Really, it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove tangible discrimination against minority groups, because, after all, discrimination is a practice which warrants tangible evidence. Perceptions of racism don’t count as discrimination, despite it being the premise of this proposal.
Question: Well, it really is a major detail. Aren’t you concerned this could lead to the government doing blood tests on people to decide who fits into which racial category. Doesn’t that harken back to some troubling events, historically, in which these tactics were used to benefit some groups and hurt others?
(He’s talking about the Nazis, y’all)
Answer: I’m going to willfully ignore the basis of your question. How could this policy possibly ‘hurt others.' “I don’t know what you mean by that.” Slavery and Jim Crow still affect black youth today. I’m not going to give any actual examples of how it hurts the youth, but it does. They are owed free college, period.
(actual quote): “The idea is not that it would hurt anybody, it would help people.”
Yes, it helps the people who get free tuition. It helps you.
The inevitable dramatic increase in tuition for the students who are arbitrarily excluded from this policy, including the poor, white Appalachian and the cash-needy non-African immigrant, to pay for hordes of free-riders (not freedom riders, big difference)?
Well, their obstacles aren’t “historical,” so apparently, they should be ignored. Not only ignored, but financially compounded by the proposed “resolution” for grievances against one’s great-great-great grandfather.
Even to pay for those whose great-great-great relative was never enslaved at all, and their free tuition.
Moving on.
Question: How is this policy different than segregation, which gave favoritism to a group based on their race?
Answer: Favoritism? How can you use that word? (triggered!) Calling long-overdue reparations for the capture, enslavement, and segregation of my ancestors is favoritism? Get the hell outta here! I’m not going to answer your very valid and logical question, straw man arguments are WAY less complicated. Yep, I’ll stick with the straw man here….
Let’s give a more realistic scenario, one that Andrea won’t be able to use her illogic to explain away quite so easily.
Question: What about an 18-year-old African-American who is the son of two doctors. What about him getting this benefit of free tuition over somebody from a poor background who happens to be of a different color. Does that seem just to you?
Answer: Well, now you’re talking about “economic privilege.” That’s a different discussion. Oh, the time is up on this segment because I have spent most of my talking time on non-sensical non-answers? Bummer, maybe we’ll get into these nuances next time. Or not. Definitely not.
And this, ladies and gents, is where the debate over racial discrimination, the forms it takes, and what to do about this apparently rampant problem has settled.
Logic vs. illogic. Serious questions vs. unrelated, irrelevant platitudes.
Western Kentucky has chosen illogic and race-based policy making.
No, this is not a rural Mississippi town circa 1958 we are talking about here.
This is 2017 liberal America. Where illogic and grievance rules all.
