Happy Plessivus! The New Rage in Separate-but-Equal Celebrations
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 11 months ago • 31 commentsBy: Boston Mayor Michelle (JONATHAN TURLEY)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Below is my column in The Hill on the reemergence of separate but equal policies from housing to graduation to even holiday parties. Many on the left are now embracing race-based exclusions as a certain article of faith. That was vividly shown in the race-based holiday party thrown recently by Boston Mayor Michelle Wu.
Here is the column:
For some, it seems, Christmas is so last century, and "Festivus" is so last decade.
Happy Plessivus, the new rage in politically correct holiday celebration.
Now, as we approach the 70th anniversary of the rejection of Plessy v. Ferguson and the concept of separate-but-equal with the Supreme Court's 1954 landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, many people seem to be embracing racial segregation as a public good.
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu offered just such an alternative with a holiday party that excluded guests on the basis of race. Wu was criticized after her staff mistakenly sent the entire city council an invitation to the party at the city-owned Parkman House. However, the invitation told white city council members that they could not attend due to their race.
It was not exactly what most of us think of as being in the spirit of the holidays. Yet, it is precisely what Wu wanted to capture for a racialized holiday theme with a hefty helping of identity politics.
It seems that, today, the three kings would be told by the angel to just drop off the gold, frankincense and myrrh at the door of the stable if they were not the right race.
What was most striking about the controversy is that Wu's office apologized — but not for the racially exclusive policy. It apologized for sending the invite to white city council members.
Despite the criticism, Wu proudly posted a photo of all the attendees at her "electeds of color" holiday party. Six of the city's 13 council members are people of color.
Imagine the reaction if the mayor held a holiday party only for white city council members. She would be called the Bull Connor of Christmas.
Yet, such racism is now not just acceptable but seemingly popular. The mayor used official property and staff to hold a racially segregated event, but many in Boston were apparently thrilled.
Roughly 20 years ago, I wrote about how we seemed to be moving toward a revival of separate-but-equal in schools, dorms, graduation ceremonies, events, and academic programs that excluded some students on the basis of race.
Some supporters defended Wu by arguing that such racial segregation is needed to make minorities feel safe or accepted, even on the ultra-left Boston city council, on which members of color are one seat short of an outright majority.
The case for such race-exclusive dinners was made by then-Justice Henry Billings Brown almost 125 years ago, when he explained that some people simply find the "commingling" of races to be "unsatisfactory." He said that for a 7-2 majority in Plessy v. Ferguson.
It is not the taste of discrimination but the ease of the discrimination that is so alarming. Racial segregation now appears to be an article of faith for too many on the left.
It has gotten to the point that Super Bowl champion running back Rashard Mendenhall was entirely comfortable in declaring that whites are "not even good at football. Can we please replace the Pro Bowl with an All-Black vs. All-White bowl so these cats can stop trying to teach me who's good at football."
That could be the perfect combination for the racially intolerant: A race-based holiday dinner at Mayor Wu's house, followed by a racially segregated holiday football game.
Wu's dinner and Mendenhall's posting are, ultimately, trivial matters compared to a wide array of policies and programs that are again dividing the nation along racial lines.
Courts have repeatedly found the Biden administration to be engaging in racial discrimination in such programs. In Wisconsin, for example, a federal court stopped Biden's controversial $4 billion race-based federal relief program for farmers, holding that white farmers were found to be "experiencing discrimination at the hands of their government." Another court held that the administration engaged in systemic discrimination in implementing COVID-19 relief for restaurants and bars.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that racial discrimination does not become good policy despite being carried out with the best of motivations. In 1989, in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., the high court ruled that "legislative assurances of good intention cannot suffice."
The public agrees. A majority has long rejected racial criteria in areas like college admissions. Yet, despite the Supreme Court recently declaring such criteria to constitute racial discrimination, some colleges and universities are circumventing the decision with new pathways to maintain race-based admission goals.
Such politicians and educators are responding to a segment of our population driven by identity politics — even for holidays. Christmas is now viewed by some as just another race-based jump scare, seen through the lens of race and the dangers of what some have called "white privilege" disguised as Santa.
There is an alternative: We could use this holiday to celebrate our shared values and strengthen our interconnectedness. Instead of looking through the lens of race, we could just look at each other as individuals — even if it is just once a year.
Instead, we seem to have our own versions of "Krampus," who would come around every year to chase naughty children and maybe even drag them to hell. In Germany, Krampus added an edge to the holidays; you had to escape Krampus trying to hit you with a stick and stuff you into his satchel to make it to the big holiday payoff.
The one thing you have to hand Krampus, however, is that he did not discriminate. He would bag anyone for the holiday.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Tags
Who is online
605 visitors
The question of who the "racists" are arose the other day in an article supposedly about what Abraham Lincoln said was the cause of the Civil War from his point of view. In that article, which was pinned to something Lincoln said at the start of his second term, I was called "a ridiculous person."
From me to our readers: Boston Mayor Michelle Wu is by definition A RACIST!
So, there is one we can clearly identify.
Only idiots and those trying to deflect from their racism ask this questions, the members of the party of the klan who still believe that African Americans are inferior are the racists, those who think we need to remove math scores to graduate because they believe it effects AA more are racist, those that believe there should be 2 sets of qualification to get into college or to get a job are racist, there are so many examples of their racism it is hard to list them all.
And sadly, there are those who are using race.
You are right though. We should be beyond all of it.
You said that Lincoln saying slavery was the cause of the Civil War was meaningless because he said it four years after the war started. You tried to imply that Lincoln was concealing the cause of the war when it started. Which is, yes, ridiculous.
Is it your actual argument that Lincoln never thought slavery was the cause of the war in 1861? Lincoln was left off the ballot in 1860 in many southern states and didnt win the electoral vote in any of them. Why? Because he was perceived to be anti-slavery. That is the truth, whether you like it or not.
Actually, I gave you Lincoln's words on the origins of the war. Shall I post it again?
I'll even provide it with complete context:
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
american civil war - What is the context of Lincoln saying: "if I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it" - History Stack Exchange
As I said earlier, his views changed as lives were being lost, because the enormous loss of life would have to stand for something greater like the ending of slavery, which Lincoln & the union did. Americans can take great pride in that. However, you erroneously pinned your article on his revised thinking about the war, not the initial reasons he gave for the war.
Is it your actual argument that Lincoln never thought slavery was the cause of the war in 1861?
No. Lincoln was against the institution of slavery, even then, but his first priority, at least in the beginning, was to preserve the union.
Lincoln was left off the ballot in 1860 in many southern states and didnt win the electoral vote in any of them. Why? Because he was perceived to be anti-slavery. That is the truth, whether you like it or not.
Your article was not about what southern leaders thought. It was explicitly about what you claim Lincoln thought.
Vic that article was a specific response to the previous day when some of your cohorts here tried to claim that slavery was not the cause of the war, and they used Lincoln as a reason why it wasnt. So I saw something with Lincoln's actual words that he thought slavery was the cause of the war.
But in the end, it doesnt matter what even Lincoln said was the cause of the war. We know the cause of the war - the south seceded after the 1860 election because they thought the election results meant that the north was ready to move on ending slavery.
In that case you shouldn't have used Lincoln's words towards the end of the war. It would have been better had you simply used the words of Jefferson Davis.
Lincoln, and most everyone else alive in 1861 well knew the cause of the war. The nation had been arguing about it for decades. The idea that Lincoln did not know , in 1861, that slavery was the cause of secession is bizarre.
There you go again. most everyone else alive in 1861? Try to think about average people back then.
The idea that Lincoln did not know , in 1861, that slavery was the cause of secession is bizarre.
READ WHAT HE SAID! His primary interest was preserving the union.
It is a waste of time to engage you on this.
I do wonder though why the same people who dispute the cause of the civil war are the same people who howl about Confederate statues being taken down, and about black history being taught in school. Something is going on there.
I am not disputing the cause of the Civil War. That buzz word of yours: "slavery" was certainly one of them, but you made a mistake in trying to use the Lincoln of 1860 to make your case.
howl about Confederate statues being taken down,
Taking statues down merits a ten-year prison term. You don't get to do things like that.
black history being taught in school.
Black history is taught in school and always has been. It is too bad other parts of American history are barely being taught.
Something is going on there.
For sure.
Who has argued that?
That is what you should have used.
“That buzz word of yours: "slavery"…
Diminishing the word slavery diminishes anything and everything one could imagine. And thus imagining is all one is left with.
‘buzz word’ ?
[deleted]
The usual strawman!
That would be an interesting poll to see. Can you supply the link?
Boston has been and remains one of America's most racially segregated cities. Mayor Wu is simply maintaining that bean town tradition.
Boston mayor's party that excluded White officials didn't violate law: AG
Boston mayor's party that excluded White officials didn't violate law: AG (msn.com)
I think we may have just exposed another "racist."
When racism was very popular in the US against minorities what did you do to try and change the status quo, Vic?
Talk is so very cheap.
Unfortunately, I can't undo all the wrongs of the world, but unlike a few here, I can call out racism no matter who it is aimed at.
So, you didn't do anything,
Good to know.
Your defense of racism against white people is disgusting.
It was your comment that you did nothing when minorities were the target of racism, yet you try to make me the racist, if anything is disgusting and racist it would be your comment and non-action.
Nope, I never said that. In my youth it was US that were being discriminated against. The "minorities" hadn't even arrived yet.
The subject at hand is the UNLAWFUL discrimination against white people. You can't seem to condemn it.
“The subject at hand is the UNLAWFUL discrimination against white people.”
The subject at hand?
Howl away, vic…but take a breath [deleted]
First off that is exactly what you said.
OMG, LOLOLOL you were being discriminated against that is the biggest load of shit I've heard in quite some time and the minorities hadn't arrived yet, what world and age were you in Vic, a parallel universe?
What did you do when faced with this discrimination, Vic? It had to be from white folks who felt they were exercising their God given rights since per your comment there were no minorities when you were being discriminated against.
This is just too funny.
I am aware of what the subject is and is it unlawful to not invite whites to a Christmas Party, is there a legal opinion rendered on it?
If you actually read my comments instead of trying to put words in my mouth you would know that I condemned her actions but found the blow back from the NT RWers to be funny.
Show us.
OMG, LOLOLOL you were being discriminated against that is the biggest load of shit I've heard in quite some time
The rest of the country isn't necessarily like where you grew up. In the northeast it was about blue-collar immigrants and who came off the boat last.
It had to be from white folks
Oh yes, but as we can see in this case, minorities are quite capable of racism.
This is just too funny.
Is it? You have convinced me that I was right. You just can't condemn racism against whites.
I did.
How in the world would you have the slightest idea of what the rest of the country was like, you've never been to many places in this country. You don't think there were immigrants in all parts of the country...JHC that is some bizarre thinking or lack thereof.
How is that Vic? what is there in his case that in your mind is racism?
A couple of things thoughts on that comment. First, you seem to have a problem in saying there is racism/discrimination against minorities and you have whined since you became a member of NT on how there is racism against whites.
Second, as I pointed out in my previous comment I have done that, when I find pure racism against whites I will state that fact and voice my opinion on it.
Cheers
No, you didn't, just like you didn't condemn the racist act of the mayor. You chose to try and make me the topic.
How is that Vic? what is there in his case that in your mind is racism?
You don't know what racism is? Then don't use the term.
A couple of things thoughts
Here is one for you: minorities don't have a right to discriminate. It is in the Constitution.
It's been a pleasure, and the pleasure was all mine.
I told you I did and if you took the time you could find it in a comment of mine. You choose to make yourself the topic with some of the nonsense you post.
I don't know what racism is and you feel that you do? And how do you manage this slight of mind?
Really!!! what minority in this article is discriminating against anyone? Point that bad boy out and I take it from there.
You are aware when it comes to discrimination that it goes back to the Declaration of Independence, don't you? Those white folks lied and made a racist comment about us Original Americans.
That's just wonderful and happy for you, Vic. That could be described as ''offendotron''.
Cheers