Some people commenting in the comment section have felt that I have gone too far in pointing to the historic use of the word "cockroach" in describing fellow human beings by Ms. Rachael Ballard SC '11 most certainly has racial overtones. I do not back down from criticizing the use of that language and feel myself absolutely justified in its usage. To compare a man to a beast is to lower him to be less than human.
Did we not hear just that when Pomona students wanted to ban the alma mater after there was a question as to its origins in minstrelsy? Did we not hear the same kind of argument when people suggested that the White Party evoked the animalization of black women?
Here's a more Claremont specific example for those of you so searching for one.
I do not think that these instances are atypical of black power groups, which by their very design, reject the political and natural equality of men. If race matters, which they all contend it does, it must matter positively and therefore reject political and natural equality of man, the very basis of which unites the human experience and gives purpose to the principles of the Declaration.
2 comments:
Are you really sure that you want to point to the logic behind banning the alma mater or White Party as the JUSTIFICATION of your condemnation?
Those are exactly the kind of situations that result when people read WAY to much into something looking for racist overtones.
Ms Ballard's prejudice is readily apparent in the videos without anyone needing to accuse her of undermining democratic ideals or adopting the language of Rwandan genocidaires.
Charles, you'll love that the one comment she posted from the Portside on her facebook is a terrible, unsubstantiative comment that does nothing to support her side of the story. It's rather sad--and proves that she will only post information the furthers her Black radicalist way of thinking. Looks like there's a new form of racism in this day and age...the form of the "forever and eternally oppressed...let's hate".
Post a Comment