Portland, Ore., wallows in guilt for being “the whitest big city in America” as if that were, in and of itself, a bad thing. Portland is actually something much worse: It is the most race-obsessed city in America.
Thanks to the media – local and national – Portland can’t get over, won’t get over its shameful racist past which, frankly, is no more racist or shameful than many places in the U.S. or even the world.
The U.S. has nothing to rival India’s class of untouchables. Nor do we have anything to rival the internecine tribal warfare of many countries in Africa.
In our own American backyards, we have an infinite variety of racial and cultural clashes. We are, after all, a nation of mutts. The media know this yet they conveniently ignore it, preferring to cast whites as the only racists.
Portland, with its high concentration of people possessing light beige complexions, is fertile ground for race-based journalism. The most recent example is in The New York Times: “Portland Protest Points to a Deeper Divide Over the City’s Identity.”
I attended this meaningless protest. A group that the media like to call “alt-right” gathered this past weekend on Portland’s waterfront to talk about freedom and God. Protesters that the media label “antifas” – short for anti-fascists – gathered across the boulevard from the waterfront to shout “Nazi!” at their presumed opponents.
Portland police stood between the alt-right group and the antifas to keep them from brawling as they have in the past. When the antifas tried to push forward and physically confront the alt-right, the police intervened with flash-bang grenades and other riot-control devices. Neither of these sides was fighting for anything except publicity.
The media-driven labels mean nothing. The alt-right protesters are not necessarily pro-Trump. Antifas are not necessarily anti-fascists; they are so quick to stifle anyone who disagrees with them that they come off as authoritarian.
The Times called this protest a “political caldron” and intoned, “(T)he deep disparity between where the city began and where it ended up — from an openly racist territorial capital in the 19th century to one of the nation’s most politically progressive cities — has never fully been resolved, or healed.”
For predictable comments, The Times reached out to Randy Blazak, a sociologist and chair of the Oregon Coalition Against Hate Crimes.
“There’s a massive state of denial,” he said.
A group that calls itself “Oregon Coalition Against Hate Crimes” needs hate crimes to justify its existence. Like that old saying, if you’re a hammer everything looks a like nail.
If you prowl around this group’s website, it’s clear they are only interested in hate crimes they assume are perpetrated by whites. All racist graffiti, for example, is presumed to have been created by whites.
The Times and Blazak are so desperate to make the case for Oregon’s racism that they cite an 1857 state law prohibiting blacks from living in the state.
“Many Oregonians refuse to study or acknowledge the legacy of their history, from the state’s founding to the rise of its Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s to the gentrification and displacement of communities of color today, he (Blazak) said.”
That law in 1857 made sense at the time given the turmoil over slavery. What exactly would The Times and Blazak have white Oregonians do now? Hang their heads in perpetual shame for events that occurred before they were born? Sign over all their property to blacks? Indenture themselves and their white off-spring to blacks?
If white Oregonians are so racist, how is it that we have black state legislators elected by a predominantly white electorate.
In November two black women will face each other for a seat on the Portland City Council. In the primary leading up to this race, the local media were happily reporting on efforts to keep white candidates out of the race. While one white male candidate took the hint and dropped out, another white male and a white female pursued active campaigns and were given short shrift by the media.
The city of Portland currently has a program offering financial assistance to blacks who want to move into historic black neighborhoods that have been gentrified. Conceivably, the children or grandchildren of a black homeowner who took advantage of rising real estate prices and sold their home for a profit and moved away, can now move into a revitalized neighborhood with the help of the city (provided they don’t mind neighbors who will likely be white).
While Portland and Oregon have moved on, perhaps The New York Times should examine the bigotry it condones today at its own newspaper. Not 160 years ago, but right now.
The Times recently announced that Sarah Jeong will be joining its Editorial Board as its lead opinion writer on technology. Jeong, who was born in South Korea, calls herself “a woman of color on the internet,” a label she has used as a license to gleefully bash white people.
The Times knew about this when they hired her. As Seth Barron wrote in City Journal, Jeong’s history of “nasty and puerile racial invective” against white people may have been seen by the Times as a qualification.
Jeong and white-haters might want to acquaint themselves with a story that the late humorist Sam Levenson liked to tell anti-Semites. He would list some of the medicines created by Jewish doctors that are used to treat syphilis, diabetes, convulsions, malnutrition, infantile paralysis and tuberculosis. He suggested that people who hate Jews boycott these drugs as a matter of principle.
Go ahead, Sarah Jeong and other bigots of color – reject everything ever invented by white people. See what you have left.
Whoops, there goes The New York Times.
– Pamela Fitzsimmons
From the Archives:
I’ve been on a month-long vacation from the news media so I didn’t hear about this Sarah Jeong. Ironic the Times would hire her when remains of Korean veterans are coming home.
I once had a student who referred to the Korean War as a “nothing war.” I asked him what he meant. He said his dad had been sent to Korea and nobody cared about the Korean War. I’d guess this Sarah Jeong doesn’t care.
To be honest, I know very little about the Korean War. Most Americans don’t, I suspect. What they do know is probably related to the old TV series, M*A*S*H, and it was a comedy.
Long after the war was officially over, American servicemen were still stationed there. When the draft was in force, the husband of one of my cousins was drafted and had to go to Korea. I couldn’t tell you what he did there.
I suppose I have an uncommon knowledge of the Korean War.
When I was in 3rd grade my mother took me to Orcas Island while she visited an old school friend from Clatskanie there. Her husband was a shock for me.
He’d led a squad of 19 marines into a communist ambush. They all died. He had an eye and part of his face shot away. I’d never before seen a man degraded by alcohol like that, and seldom since.
At Farmington View Elementary my principal was a soft spoken William Wyndham-like man who was very good with kids and parents. Later in Aloha I had him for 8th grade English. Same man, except when he was once brought to recollect the young GIs he came across as the reds pulled back.
Anyway, started reading about that war and have never quit. A huge amount of literature exists with regard to the American and British involvement. Film actors Michael Caine and James Garner among others were wounded in battle there.
I’m reading a book titled Savage Continent. It exams the nightmarish disarray of Europe following the Second World War. Ethnic, regional, religious, territorial hates beyond imagining: mass rape of Germans by Poles, mass everything by everyone.
Why is the Democratic Party working expressly to make tribalism a powerful force in America? Why? Have these people no understanding of the thinness of co-operation and civilization?
Your memory of the husband of your mother’s old school friend reminded me of my uncle. He lived in South Dakota, and I only saw him once when I was a little girl. He was my mother’s oldest brother, and he had suffered major shrapnel wounds to his face in WWII. We were going to visit relatives in South Dakota, and my mother lectured my brother and me in advance: Don’t stare.
My uncle stayed home a lot, because he did not like to scare kids. At least the war he fought in was not brushed off. Nor did he live long enough to hear about all his white, male privilege.
I agree with Matt. Your questions nailed it, especially “Have these people no understanding of the thinness of co-operation and civilization?”
No, they don’t. As Matt says, they honestly think they are on the right path. They are as ignorant about human nature as I am about the Korean War. At least I understand how quickly people can revert to their worst instincts — whatever their skin color or ethnicity.
Larry wrote:
“Why is the Democratic Party working expressly to make tribalism a powerful force in America? Why? Have these people no understanding of the thinness of co-operation and civilization?”
This is THE question facing America today. The answer is that the left doesn’t see it that way. This is likely the way all great travesties start, of course. Most proponents don’t think about or they misinterpret the consequences of their actions.
I agree with you. The Dems are pushing for tribalism, but they don’t see it that way. My wife is intimately involved with local Dem groups as are most of her friends. Most genuinely believe that identity politics are not just a means to victory in elections but the right thing to do. It is the “fair” thing to do. They truly think that there are no consequences from everyone speaking different languages and having different practices as long as everyone “believes in America.”
All of my grandparents spoke with accents despite the fact that they were all born in the US and never traveled abroad. None spoke English until they went to school. The immigrant story is my family’s story. All of them recognized the necessity of assimilation, however.
I recall the first time I heard the concept that we were not a melting pot but a mixing bowl. That was the start, and it was 30 years ago.
I blame our success as a society. Most white people in America are so far removed from violence that they think we have moved beyond it as a society. I point to the ridiculous sign at the Portland protest last week that exclaimed, “Spoiler alert: Love Wins”. The absurdity of this claim is embarrassing, but it is honestly held by all the Dems I know.
Unfortunately, it will take a critical mass of victims to convince the rest that we need to espouse a shared American set of ideals as the only acceptable viewpoint. Language is the primary aspect of culture. Any group that does not share a language (or at the very least the aspiration to such language) is no singular group.
The pendulum swings. The bell also tolls. Hopefully the timing of each works out for us all.
Earlier this year, Philadelphia elected Larry Krasner, a Public Defender, to be its new District Attorney. He recently gave an address at John Jay College in which he said the justice system needs to change the way it handles violent offenders and sex criminals.
“This is the topic that the left and the press never want to talk about, because this is the tough one,” he said.
To Krasner (and many Democrats in Oregon’s state legislature), it’s all about money. Empty the prisons, and you can take the savings and spend it elsewhere. Naturally, the analogy he uses is hiring more teachers.
Krasner doesn’t address what this does to society when you change the rules and allow violent crime to be tolerated. Like you point out, most white people in America are far removed from violence. Krasner and the media know perfectly well that most crime victims are from the lower socio-economic classes. They don’t worry about violent crime.
I was at last week’s protest, and I’m sorry I missed seeing that sign “Spoiler alert: Love Wins.” I would have gone up to the person holding it and asked about the two men stabbed to death on the Max train last year: “Had Micah Fletcher shown Jeremy Christian some love, would those two men still be alive? Is that what you mean with “Love Wins?'”
How come you don’t mention Joey Gibson? The only reason the fascists turned out to raise hell was to shut him down. I have to take issue with your statement that both sides were seeking publicity. Have you ever met Joey? He didn’t get involved in politics to promote himself. He got tired of being told what to think and say. I went to hear him speak last year out of curiosity. He wasn’t what you’d call mesmerizing but got his point across. He doesn’t hate it when people disagree with him. He’s got a sense of humor. When he was at the waterfront he behaved himself and did what the cops asked. The fascists are the ones who tried to shut down traffic and got their asses whipped. Not everybody who turns up on Joey’s side voted for Trump. I supported Bernie.
I’ve never heard of Sarah Jeong. She’s worth a protest.
I didn’t mention Joey Gibson because he almost seems tangential. He has no real identity apart from these permits he takes out to exercise his free speech rights.
I went to the four protests held last year in the parks near City Hall — Gibson’s and the three alternative protests denouncing him. Gibson has created a pulpit for himself, and the media interview him, but he doesn’t use the attention to good advantage. He seems to be winging it most of the time and just talking off the top of his head. Does he have a coherent political philosophy or message? Likewise, the “antifas” (or fascists) respond in rote fashion.
[…] The Media’s Minstrel Show […]
[…] The Media’s Minstrel Show […]