The content of the column is really not that surprising (I'm months behind on my blogging), nor really is the fact that it is published in what was supposed to be the "paper of record" in the old "America" ... the nation that was "Under God", and "endowned by it's creator". We don't live there, this is BOistan.
I do not write this with liberal condescension or glee. My heart is unbearably heavy when I assure you we cannot be friends.The column is quite standard racial posturing -- forget all the multi-millionaire and even billionaire blacks. Take Oprah ... $2.8 billion and maybe running for president. Somebody is "afraid for their kids" -- we all know that if you live in a major BOistan city and you are white, you sure as hell tell your kids which parts of the city to stay out of entirely, and CERTAINLY after dark!
You may certainly be afraid for your kids if you are black as well -- but by far the most likely way for them to be killed is at the hands of another black!
So how "racist" can a nation that elects a black president (twice), and in which a black female multi-billionaire is considered by many a legitimate candidate for the same office on the basis of one speech on an awards show? Well, according to the author of the times column, VERY! Because, well, TRUMP!
Of course, the rise of this president has broken bonds on all sides. But for people of color the stakes are different. Imagining we can now be friends across this political line is asking us to ignore our safety and that of our children, to abandon personal regard and self-worth.See Oprah can be an immediate legitimate candidate in the same nation in which Trump being elected means that blacks who imagine they might be "friends" with a white person would be "abandoning personal regard and self-worth". Got that?
This is what counts as "opinion" in the NY Times. Not just a random brain fart in a drunken stupor, but "opinion".
Does this person have any sort of thought that is NOT "liberal condescension"? I have my doubts.
'via Blog this'