Woke Restaurant Serves Discomfort Food

The DC reader who sends this says the Schadenfreude is delicious. He is correct. Washington City Paper reports on the hilariously failed effort of Busboys and Poets, a local restaurant, to be racially woke. Excerpts:

Sometimes you can have the best of intentions and still miss the mark completely. Such is the case with Busboys and Poets‘ “Race Card” initiative, which aims to foster discussions about race and privilege among its diners by handing out literal “Race Cards”—cards featuring larger questions about the state of race relations in America—to patrons as they enter.

recent Facebook post featuring one of the “Race Cards”—which reads “Did you perceive me as racist because I’m a white male?”—has garnered more than 150 shares and even more comments, with people criticizing Busboys and Poets for taking a somewhat tone-deaf approach in trying to foster a conversation about race. Other “Race Cards” that Busboys and Poets employees are handing out read: “What is your experience with race in America?,” “Have you ever been in a place where you were the racial minority?,” and “How often do you discuss race with your friends or family?”

Akosua Johnson, who posted the picture that went viral, says that a bartender at Busboys and Poets handed them the card when they sat down at the bar. Johnson, who identifies as nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns, wrote on Facebook that the bartender, who was white, “had no idea how to actually engage with this poorly constructed, forced ‘conversation’ and so just walked away immediately after dropping the cards in the middle of my meal.”

Oh boy. This is getting good. I had to re-read the next part of the story to realize that the antecedent to the pronoun “them” is actually one person. A very woke person: Akosua Johnson, who was REALLY OFFENDED that Andy Shallal, owner of the restaurant had no reached out to the Professionally Woke Grifter-American Community for advice before playing the race card. He probably figured that by being intentionally progressive — left-wingery is written into the mission statement of the local restaurant chain — he was covered. Wrong!

You can imagine what happened next — but it’s fun to read the indignant statement from DC’s Black Lives Matter, in which its spokeswoman excommunicates Shallal and his restaurant, because he tried to do the racially correct (by BLM standards) thing in the wrong way. Akosua Johnson concludes, sadly: “The creators of this Busboys program erred in not choosing to engage more directly with racial justice activists and educators.”

Whole thing here. It usually makes sense to just shut up and cook. Who the heck wants to go eat or drink at a restaurant that serves discomfort food? Busboys and Poets, which describes itself as “a community where racial and cultural connections are consciously uplifted,” deserves this pain.

Meanwhile, Akosua Johnson would like you to compensate Akosua Johnson for Akosua Johnson’s  semi-hemi-demi-shakedown social justice accomplishment (or at least hire zir to enlighten the unenlightened):

Read more from The American Conservative…

The Racial Double Standard

Coleman Hughes, a black student at Columbia, goes there. His essay begins like this:

In the fall of 2016, I was hired to play in Rihanna’s back-up band at the MTV Video Music Awards. To my pleasant surprise, several of my friends had also gotten the call. We felt that this would be the gig of a lifetime: beautiful music, primetime TV, plus, if we were lucky, a chance to schmooze with celebrities backstage.

But as the date approached, I learned that one of my friends had been fired and replaced. The reason? He was a white Hispanic, and Rihanna’s artistic team had decided to go for an all-black aesthetic—aside from Rihanna’s steady guitarist, there would be no non-blacks on stage. Though I was disappointed on my friend’s behalf, I didn’t consider his firing as unjust at the time—and maybe it wasn’t. Is it unethical for an artist to curate the racial composition of a racially-themed performance? Perhaps; perhaps not. My personal bias leads me to favor artistic freedom, but as a society, we have yet to answer this question definitively.

One thing, however, is clear. If the races were reversed—if a black musician had been fired in order to achieve an all-white aesthetic—it would have made front page headlines. It would have been seen as an unambiguous moral infraction. The usual suspects would be outraged, calling for this event to be viewed in the context of the long history of slavery and Jim Crow in this country, and their reaction would widely be seen as justified. Public-shaming would be in order and heartfelt apologies would be made. MTV might even enact anti-bias trainings as a corrective.

Though the question seems naïve to some, it is in fact perfectly valid to ask why black people can get away with behavior that white people can’t. The progressive response to this question invariably contains some reference to history: blacks were taken from their homeland in chains, forced to work as chattel for 250 years, and then subjected to redlining, segregation, and lynchings for another century. In the face of such a brutal past, many would argue, it is simply ignorant to complain about what modern-day blacks can get away with.

Yet there we were—young black men born decades after anything that could rightly be called ‘oppression’ had ended—benefitting from a social license bequeathed to us by a history that we have only experienced through textbooks and folklore. And my white Hispanic friend (who could have had a tougher life than all of us, for all I know) paid the price. The underlying logic of using the past to justify racial double-standards in the present is rarely interrogated. What do slavery and Jim Crow have to do with modern-day blacks, who experienced neither? Do all black people have P.T.S.D from racism, as the Grammy and Emmy award-winning artist Donald Glover recently claimed? Is ancestral suffering actually transmitted to descendants? If so, how? What exactly are historical ‘ties’ made of?

Hughes goes on to lament the double standard the public applies to famous black writers. For example:

The celebrated journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates provides another example of the lower ethical standard to which black writers are held. In his #1 New York Times bestseller, Between the World and Me, Coates explained that the policemen and firemen who died on 9/11 “were not human to me,” but “menaces of nature.”1 This, it turned out, was because a friend of Coates had been killed by a black cop a few months earlier. In his recent essay collection, he doubled down on this pitiless sentiment: “When 9/11 happened, I wanted nothing to do with any kind of patriotism, with the broad national ceremony of mourning. I had no sympathy for the firefighters, and something bordering on hatred for the police officers who had died.”2 Meanwhile, New York Times columnist Bari Weiss—a young Jewish woman—was recently raked over the coals for tweeting, “Immigrants: They get the job done,” in praise of the Olympic ice-skater Mirai Nagasu, a second-generation Japanese-American. Accused of ‘othering’ an American citizen, Weiss came under so much fire that The Atlantic ran twoseparate pieces defending her. That The Atlantic saw it necessary to vigorously defend Weiss, but hasn’t had to lift a finger to defend Coates, whom they employ, evidences the racial double-standard at play. From a white writer, an innocuous tweet provokes histrionic invective. From a black writer, repeated expressions of unapologetic contempt for public servants who died trying to save the lives of others on September 11 are met with fawningpraise from leftwing periodicals, plus a National Book Award and a MacArthur ‘Genius’ Grant.

Hughes says this double standard is common in society:

But we make an exception for blacks. Indeed, what George Orwell wrote in 1945seems more apt today: “Almost any English intellectual would be scandalised by the claim that the white races are superior to the coloured, whereas the opposite claim would seem to him unexceptionable even if he disagreed with it.” Only a black intellectual, for instance, could write an op-ed arguing that black children should not befriend white children because “[h]istory has provided little reason for people of color to trust white people,” and get it published in the New York Times in 2017. An identical piece with the races reversed would rightly be relegated to fringe white supremacist forums. In defense of such racist drivel, it won’t suffice to repeat the platitude that ‘black people can’t be racist,’ as if redefining a word changes the ethical status of the thing that the word signifies. Progressives ought not dodge the question: Why are blacks the only ethnic group routinely and openly encouraged to nurse stale grievances back to life?

Read the whole thing. It’s very, very brave. Hughes is a black undergraduate at an Ivy League university, yet he has no been afraid to say what has been unsayable. That man has guts.

By the way, his essay is not merely an exercise in whataboutism. He addresses real philosophical and moral concerns in it. He focuses on blacks, but as a general matter, if you read the mainstream press, you’ll find there’s a tendency to treat gays and other minority groups favored by liberals with kid gloves — as if they were symbols, not real people, with the same virtues and vices that everybody else has. For example, in a previous job, I observed that some liberals in the newsroom viewed local Muslims through the lens of the culture war between liberals and conservatives, and did not want to hold them to the same standard with regard to extremist rhetoric, apparently because doing so might encourage conservatives in their own biases.

Another personal example: last year, I wrote several posts about Tommy Curry, a radical black nationalist who teaches philosophy at Texas A&M (see here and here). In his written work and spoken advocacy, Curry advocates what can only be described as anti-white hatred. Don’t take my word for it; go read the blogs I wrote, which quote generously from, and link to, Curry’s own work. A white man who spoke the same way about any racial minority would never have been hired by a university — A&M hired him knowing exactly what they were getting, because he had published — and would never be retained by one after his racism became known. I linked in one of the blogs to a podcast (subtitled, “White People Are The Problem”) on which Curry was a regular guest; on that particular episode, this philosophy professor argued that white people cannot be reasonable, because they are white.

Imagine being a white student in that man’s class.

But there is a different standard for bigots from the left. The Chronicle of Higher Education wrote a long piece about the fallout from my blogs, and positioned it as Curry having suffered because he wanted to “force a conversation about race and violence” — a conversation that people didn’t want to hear. The writer — no doubt reflecting the biases of his own professional class — could not seem to grasp why people would be really offended by the unapologetic racism of Tommy Curry’s writing and speaking. This is precisely the double standard that Coleman Hughes decries. It is lucrative for radicals like Curry, Coates, and others, but a just society should hold us all to the same standard of discourse and morality. This is one aspect of the Enlightenment that I am eager to defend. It’s not only morally right, but practically, observing it it is the only way we will be able to keep the peace in a pluralistic country.

I found Hughes’s essay via Prufrock, a free daily digest that comes to you in e-mail, to which you can and should subscribe by clicking here. 

Read more from The American Conservative…

Democrats Stick with Flawed Governor Candidate Lupe Valdez in Rebuilding Plan to Appeal to Hispanic Voters

Texas Democrats are faced with a vexing choice: Pick a candidate for governor who on paper matches up better against incumbent Republican Greg Abbott? Or stick with a rebuilding plan and nominate the progressive candidate who could better appeal to the Hispanic voters seen as the key to sustainable success?

That’s the backdrop of Tuesday’s Democratic runoff for governor between former Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez and Houston investor Andrew White, the son of former Gov. Mark White.

White is telling Democrats he’s the best hope for defeating Abbott, but many progressive primary voters see Valdez as more reflective of their liberal leanings. They don’t care if she’s shaky on the issues and that Abbott is giddy over the prospect of running against her.

{snip}

Unlike Beto O’Rourke, the party’s U.S. Senate nominee against incumbent Republican Ted Cruz, Valdez and White have not raised much money or captured the excitement of Democrats looking for a way out of the harsh political wilderness.

{snip}

The race for governor, arguably the biggest, most prestigious prize in Texas politics, reveals that Texas Democrats are still stuck in a perpetual rebuilding mode. {snip}

At stake for Democrats is more than winning. They are reshaping the face, makeup and message of the party. Thirty years ago, white Democrats, especially men, were the dominant force statewide. And the party’s ideology was diverse, with conservatives, moderates and progressives all having a place.

{snip}

Andrew White entered the race with a goal of bringing conservatives and moderate Democrats like his father back into the fold. Even some of his detractors concede he has a better chance of beating Abbott than Valdez does. And it’s clear that Abbott wants to run against Valdez. He’s brazenly tried to influence the Democratic race by declaring her the winner of Tuesday’s contest and developing a website that points to her liberal stances on issues.

{snip}

Valdez embodies, in ideology, where the party wants to be. {snip}

{snip}

When White got into the race, the field was devoid of major candidates. He could have been the party’s standard-bearer and Abbott’s punching bag. {snip}

But party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa badly wanted a Hispanic candidate near the top of the ticket. Hispanic voters hold the key to the party’s future success, and he believes that Valdez is a building block in that direction.

When bigger names and more polished candidates like former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, his twin brother and U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, and state Rep. Rafael Anchia of Dallas opted against being sacrificed in November, Valdez became the favorite of party insiders.

{snip} Laredo oilman Tony Sanchez could have been a vehicle to attract Hispanic voters, but instead became a cash cow for Democratic consultants who milked $60 million of his fortune for his unsuccessful campaign against Republican Rick Perry.

{snip}

The problem for Democrats is that they haven’t been successful in doing the hard work of registering Hispanic voters and getting them accustomed to showing up at the polls. So they are sending Valdez into a mission impossible situation.

Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidates Andrew White and Lupe Valdez took part in a debate May 11. White says he’s the Democrats’ best hope for defeating Gov. Greg Abbott, but many progressive primary voters see Valdez as more reflective of their liberal leanings.

{snip}

The post Democrats Stick with Flawed Governor Candidate Lupe Valdez in Rebuilding Plan to Appeal to Hispanic Voters appeared first on American Renaissance.

Read more from American Renaissance…

Stacey Abrams becomes first black female nominee for governor

Victory in Georgia’s Democratic primary is among most consequential in series of triumphs by female candidates ahead of midterm elections

For the first time in the US, voters have chosen a black woman as nominee for state governor after Stacey Abrams declared victory in Georgia’s Democratic primary.

Abrams – a former state House minority leader and progressive who earned support from both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders – beat Stacey Evans, also a former state representative. The result was among the most consequential in a series of primaries that brought successes for female candidates across the country ahead of the 2018 midterm elections.

Continue reading…

Read more from The Guardian Politics…

Nancy Pelosi implores Democrats to ‘wave your flag’: Watch

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Monday asked Democrats and progressive groups to wave American flags while standing on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to promote their “better deal” agenda. “Wave your flag when your name is called,” Pelosi said …

Read more from Nancy Pelosi…

PolitiFact Florida: Did Gwen Graham vote against President Obama 52 percent of the time?

Rep. Gwen Graham teaches a civics class at Jinks Middle School in Panama City on Nov. 28, 2016. A progressive super PAC slammed the congressional record of Democrat Gwen Graham as too conservative for Florida’s next governor.

Read more from Guantanamo Bay…

The ‘white minority’ illusion (It IS an illusion, but we are supposed to be transcending race anyway, aren’t we?)

“Liberty-loving.” These are the key words. LIBERTY is what defines Americans. The USA is the only place in the world where this can be said about a people. An idea, not a race or ethnicity defines who is an American.

 

 

In my opinion there is no “race”. Please, someone define what “race” is supposed to mean.

Some would say that “race” is obvious. Some people are black and some people are white and so on. But where do those racial lines begin and end? I submit that there is no clear definition except to the degree that these differences have been codified in law. First through slavery and Jim Crow and more recently with racial quotas and a census that wants to pigeonhole everyone into some sort of race for political reasons.

And the author of this article is right. The much vaunted “white minority” demographic shift isn’t all it’s been sold to Democrats. And the Dems better get hip to this. The fastest growing ethnicity in this country is “hispanic” of which many of these people “identify” for all intents and purposes as “white”. I grew up with folks with hispanic surnames all around me and if they weren’t Filipino (much of my neighborhood and church was Filipino) they pretty much considered themselves “white”.

As the author also points out though many “non-euro white” ethnic groups do skew toward the Dems generally and currently. But this is by no means uniformly the case. And it is unlikely to remain the case. 2 generations ago people of Irish and Italian descent where overwhelmingly Democrats. Now that is definitely not the case.

So Dems (and I am speaking to leadership here not the rank and file) if you want to play the demographic waiting game, and divide this country by tribal lines you are not going to like the end result. You’ll just create lots of useless pain and resentment.

Better to work toward free enterprise and opportunity for all, and equality under the law, and the rule of law, than the tribal warfare of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. The USA is supposed to be, oh wait for it, I can hear the sociology department at UC Davis erupting into a triggered fit of rage – here it comes, a MELTING POT. That’s right a MELTING POT.

I’m an amalgam. Most Americans are. In Britain there was a time when the Scots were considered sub-human by the English, and the English sub-human by the Romans and on and on. The thing is, when we live together and get over our racial hang ups we find out we can usually get along. In fact we can flourish TOGETHER. That should be our focus. Free enterprise and opportunity for all. Less tribalization and busybody management from the state. That is progress. That’s progressive. Tribal warfare is retrograde. Tribal warfare is stupid.

(From This Week)

Yes, the U.S. is on track to become at some point around 2045 a “minority white” nation — in the sense that if we lump every person who isn’t white into a single demographic category of “non-white,” whites will be outnumbered. The problem is that no such politically homogeneous category of citizen exists in the real world. It’s the creation of demographers and liberal data journalists eager to mollify their anxieties.

Such people convince themselves of its reality by making a habit of talking about how “people of color” are uniformly oppressed by hegemonic “whiteness” in the United States. But the truth is that people of Hispanic, African, West Indian, East Asian, South Asian, and Arab descent don’t perceive themselves as (or vote as if they are) members of a unified bloc. They are discrete groups. Most of them do lean Democratic, but not uniformly, and they do so for disparate reasons rooted in the cultures they brought with them to this country and in their distinct histories since arriving. (That’s true of white voters, too, of course.)

Now, as critics have pointed out, it’s most likely misleading even to suggest that these ethnic categories will remain stable over the coming decades, given rising rates of intermarriage among the members of each group. But even if we assume for the sake of analysis that the categories remain intact, it’s important to recognize that “white” is going to remain the plurality group for a very long time to come. In 2045, when the shift to “minority white” country is supposed to happen, whites will be 49.8 percent of the population, with Hispanics, at 24.6 percent, the next largest group at roughly half the size.

The Dems would be crazy to continue the route they are on. It’s just ugly politics and hurtful to the country as a whole, black, white, asian, Martian, CHUD and everyone else.

Read more from Against Crony Capitalism…