Is There A Sensitivity Trainer in the House?

Victor Davis Hanson on Gates-gate:

…almost everyone (minorities included) I talked with could recall one or two personal incidents of some criminal action committed by a minority male against their person or property. Call that profiling or stereotyping. I could attest at least four… : 1976, walking to the 7/11 in East Palo Alto and being attacked by an African-American male; 1978 riding down university avenue in Palo Alto near 101, and having two black males ride by in a truck, get out and try to steal my bike with me on it; 1990 having three Mexican nationals burst into our home intent on robbery; 1998 having three police cars rush into my driveway in pursuit of fleeing Mexican national local drug lords, 2006 having an African-American burglar break into my house, waking my daughter as he ran out with her purse. And so on–all incidents of no statistical import, but the sort of anecdotal remembrance that millions share and which unfairly or not make them at least understandable of why individuals make choices in where they drive, live, and work.

Is such recitation racism? Were not, after all, those who depleted my AIG 401(k) account probably wealthy whites on Wall Street? Was not the broker who took my fruit and shorted me $1000 most likely a white professional? Perhaps.

But my point is only the public’s perception (born out by crime statistics) is that while financial and business elites may rob more from one, minority males in urban contexts engage in violent crime at higher than national averages and are more likely to use violence against one than the suspicious fruit trader or stock broker. That is an empirical fact, not a racist slur. Again, like it or not, crime soared in the 1970s-1990s and millions of Americans were the victims of robberies, break-ins, and assaults, and they have made the necessary adjustments in the way they shop, walk, visit, and drive–often all concealed beneath a veneer of denial.

And that unspoken fact too was in the background, when the President lectured us on the injustice of police supposedly profiling by race. (I think the President took one look at the Washington DC public school system, and made the necessary profiling and generalizations to put his kids in the exclusive Sidwell-Friends prep school, as do many of the DC liberal elites.) All in all, a sensitive issue, made worse by the sort of uninformed presidential grandstanding that we have witnessed all too much in these last six months. (Since assuming office, the president has managed to slur in generic fashion those in the Special Olympics, surgeons, the elderly, vacationeers to Las Vegas, and the police (more no doubt as well), building on his campaign stereotyping of “typical white people” and the middling classes of Pennsylvania–is there not a sensitivity trainer somewhere?)…

And Andrew Breitbart:

…Much of America is [indeed] petrified to bring up race, especially in public forums – the media, in particular. But for exactly the opposite reasons [Attorney General Eric] Holder, the Obama administration and the brain trust of modern liberalism assert.

Americans, especially nonblacks, are deeply fearful that the dynamic is predicated on an un-American premise: presumed guilt. Innocence, under the extra-constitutional reign of political correctness, liberalism’s brand of soft Shariah law, must be proved ex post facto.

Think not? Ask the Duke lacrosse team, which had 88 of the school’s professors sign a petition that presumed their guilt before their side of the story was known. Even though the white athletes were exonerated and the liberal district attorney who pushed the case was dethroned, disbarred and disgraced, the professoriate that assigned guilt to its own students still refuses to apologize.

Those signatories constituted 90 percent of Duke’s African and African-American Studies Department, the subject-matter domain of Mr. Gates, Michael Eric Dyson, Cornel West and other tenure-wielding, highfalutin, iambic-pentameter-filibustering race baiters, and 60 percent of Duke’s women’s studies department, another hotbed of victimology posing as intellectualism.

While the media was front and center in preparing for the public executions of the three Duke lacrosse players, they scurried away when they were proved innocent. The Democratic Media Complex, in its pursuit of Orwellian hate-crime legislation, reparations and sundry non-ameliorative resolutions to America’s troubled racial past, pursues its victims with blood lust. But it cannot act in good faith to redeem those it has destroyed in countless rushes to judgment. (Richard Jewell, R.I.P.)

The mainstream media choose to flaunt story lines that make white America appear guilty of continued institutional racism, while black racism against whites is ignored as an acceptable disposition given our nation’s history. This double standard provides a game board on which the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can thrive in perpetuity and ensures racial progress is slowed.

And that is why the Case of Sergeant Crowley vs. Professor Gates is so important. As is expected from professional race baiters, Mr. Gates instigated a public brouhaha over race. And Mr. Obama, a man who attended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s racist sermons for 20 years, used the bully pulpit to grant his friend a national platform to condemn a man for doing his job.

Sgt. Crowley, a proud and defiant public professional, played the moment perfectly and stopped his own assassination by media. Talk about a postmodern hero. Whether he likes it or not, Sgt. Crowley is a potent symbol of how the union has managed to become more perfect, a Rosa Parks of rush-to-judgment “reverse racism.”

Now that the facts of the case show that his friend the professor was the man doing the racial profiling, the president wants to end the discussion.

Now we see what the attorney general meant when he spoke of [America as a nation of] cowards.

I can’t wait for the White House Obama-Gates-Crowley “beer.” Crowley must understand that this is being orchestrated to promote Barry’s interests and not to promote racial harmony or understanding. In order to repair the damage done by his moronic comments, Barry will have to get Gates to refrain from lecturing Crowley about “racial profiling” and all the other stuff he claims to be a “scholar” of. I can’t imagine that Gates will cooperate.

If Gates insists on doing his shtick, the question is whether Crowley will then go along with what will certainly be a White House effort to portray the event as all lovey-dovey.

In other words, this damage control event could back-fire big time.

Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
%d bloggers like this: