Boeremag member Dr Lets Pretorius told the High Court in Pretoria on Monday he was not a racist and had never been in favour of using violence to achieve change.
Testifying in mitigation of sentence, he said he had not raised his sons to be racist or to be fanatical extremists.
“We were a happy, loving, God fearing and close family. I raised my sons as patriotic Afrikaners,” he said.
Pretorius, his three sons and 16 other Boeremag members were convicted last year on a charge of high treason.
This arose from a rightwing coup plot to overthrow the African National Congress government.
His sons, and Herman van Rooyen and Rudi Gouws, were also found guilty on charges of attempting to murder former president Nelson Mandela with a homemade bomb.
They were furthermore convicted of murdering Soweto mother Claudia Mokone with a bomb placed on a railway line in October 2002.
Pretorius said that as a medical doctor he worked with black patients at a missionary hospital for three years.
He ran several rural clinics in the former Lebowa for 16 years and treated both black and white patients at his private clinic.
His sons often accompanied him and did not have any problems with black people, he said.
“The day before my arrest, I received a command from the Holy Spirit to level the road for the Boer nation in the desert, and to raise a banner for the new nation that would be formed.
“There was no element of violence anywhere in this command.
“I’ve kept myself busy with this since my release on bail. I know the State has watched every word and step I take, and I am sure that if there was even a hint of illegality anywhere my bail would have been cancelled.
“I am still involved in the website Boerevryheid that is used as a debate forum to build the Boer nation as an entity.”
He denied playing a leading role in the Boeremag.
He said his role would have been to provide medical support services when a large scale black-on-white attack (the so-called Night of Terror) predicted by Boer prophet Siener van Rensburg came to pass.
He claimed the coup plot was exclusively the brainchild of fellow accused Tom Vorster and that he had not been privy to all of Vorster’s plans.
“Vorster assured me we were busy with plans that would come into effect after the Night of Terror.
“I never had the impression that we were busy with an offensive action. I was very effectively bluffed.
“I am prepared to admit attending meetings and to admit my lack of insight.
“I was always on the sidelines and never helped to make plans, except to ensure there was medical equipment available.
“I can say in all honesty that I was never at any stage busy planning a coup.
“If people had enough trust in me to link my name without my knowledge to ranks and posts, I should not be punished for it.
“I never had the impression that my sons were going to plant bombs.
“I knew absolutely nothing about the planting of bombs. If I had not been arrested, I would have done everything within my power to ensure than no bomb ever went off.
“I confronted my sons in jail about the bombs and was told Tom Vorster and Hanekom had convinced them they would be in a situation of war and would be protected by the Geneva Convention.
“I’ve never been in favour of violence to achieve change.
“I had always treated the victims of violence, but the first time I personally came into contact with violence was when a gun was pushed against my head and I was shoved around during my arrest.
“I’ve had a good relationship with black people all of my life. My record [as a medical doctor] speaks for itself,” he said.
Pretorius testified that he and his son Johan, also a medical doctor, had according to his calculations each lost about R20 million as a result of the case.
They had to close down their private hospital and Pretorius also had to sell off his farms and livestock.
US prosecutors handling the case of two black teenagers accused of shooting dead a white Australian baseball player said Friday there was no evidence to suggest the killing was racially-motivated.
The murder of Chris Lane, 22, in the small Oklahoma town of Duncan has triggered a race debate in America after it emerged that one of the victim’s alleged killers had posted racist comments on Twitter earlier this year.
Several commentators have questioned why authorities had not pressed to have hate crime charges added to the indictment of James Edwards, 15, and Chancey Luna, 16, who are both charged with murder.
However Stephens County District Attorney Jason Hicks said while authorities were aware of the comments made by Edwards, there was not enough evidence to pursue extra charges.
“At this point, the evidence does not support the theory that Christopher Lane was targeted based upon his race or nationality,” Hicks said in a statement.
“The evidence is insufficient to establish that race was the primary motive in the murder of Christopher Lane.”
In separate posts on Twitter earlier this year, Edwards spoke of his “hatred” of white people.
“90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM,” read one tweet.
In another post Edwards claimed to have assaulted several “woods” — a derogatory slang term for white people — following the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the killing of black teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida.
Hicks later reiterated to CNN that he did not believe the crime was racially motivated. He noted that Luna came from a mixed race family, and that the third teenager arrested with the duo, 17-year-old Michael Dewayne Jones, was white.
“I have nothing in my files, paperwork or audio recordings that suggest that Christopher Lane was killed because of his race or nationality,” Hicks said on CNN.
Police have said Edwards and Luna shot Lane because they were “bored.”
“They were bored and just wanted to see someone die,” Duncan police chief Danny Ford told US media.
Hicks agreed that Ford’s explanation appeared to be the most likely.
“I tend to think that the police chief’s comments, that is they did it out of boredom are probably accurate,” Hicks said.
Both Edwards and Luna were charged with first degree murder, a crime punishable by death in Oklahoma.
Jones has been charged with use of a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon and acting as an accessory after the fact. – Sapa/AFP
Following upon the recent controversial campaign conducted by Dr. Piet Croucamp against Dr. Louise Mabille of Tuks, Mr. Johann Botha of Johannesburg has lodged a complaint against Croucamp with the University of Johannesbur for unprofessional and unethical conduct. The text of his letter is reproduced here.
Dear Dr Croucamp, Prof Sadie and members of UJ Executive Management,
The recent public debacle surrounding a complaint of alleged hate speech by Dr Piet Croucamp from the Department of Politics at UJ against Dr Louise Mabille, former academic from TUKS, refers. Given the serious nature of the allegation, in conjunction with Dr Croucamp’s position as academic, public figure as political analyst and commentator, and representative of the University of Johannesburg, it was important that his actions in this regard should be beyond reproach. However, it would appear that this has not been the case, and, as such, has the potential to reflect negatively on the respected reputation and integrity of your university unless constructively dealt with.
Piet Croucamp
It would appear that Dr Croucamp based his complaint on a sentence from a recent opinion piece on feminism written by Dr Mabille and published on the Praag website, in which she says: “Naturally, it is much easier [for Western feminists] to endlessly complain about ‘Calvinism’ than to ask the question why the rape of babies is a cultural phenomenon among black ethnic groups”. Dr Croucamp construed this statement as racist and hate speech in nature.
While Dr Mabille’s statement is of course provocative and debatable, it is not my intention to defend her or to justify such a statement, nor to judge whether it is indeed racist and/or an example of hate speech. That is for Dr Mabille to do, although I understand that she has retracted her remark with apology.
Rather, while Dr Croucamp’s complaint and subsequent actions appear to have the honourable motive of standing up against and counteracting racism and hate speech, his handling of the debacle unfortunately raises serious doubts about the true nature of his motives and practical actions in this regard, which already had negative implications in general for the state of debate on race in South Africa and attempts to deal with racism and hate speech effectively.
Firstly, in a TV interview with eNuus on Kyknet earlier this week and available on Youtube (where I first had the opportunity to watch it this weekend), Dr Croucamp did not put Dr Mabille’s remark in proper context. He did not clearly state that she asked why Western feminists find it easier to endlessly complain about ‘Calvinism’ rather than asking ‘why the rape of babies is a cultural phenomenon among black ethnic groups’. Instead, he contracted her remark to a statement that the rape of babies as a cultural phenomenon among black people, thus facilitating and amplifying his allegation of racism and hate speech. Yet he went even further: He alleged and in fact emphasised that she purportedly stated black people have a ‘genetic propensity‘ toward the rape of babies.
In actuality, and as should be clear from sentence I quoted, she made no such statement, nor does the broader context of her article suggest such an interpretation. In contrast, and bearing in mind the fact of her article’s obvious intent to expose the intellectual hypocrisy of many Western feminists, it appears far more likely that she intended part of her remark as a reference to the prevalence of the myth that HIV/Aids can be cured by having sex with a virgin or baby, which is a ‘cultural phenomenon’ presumably in the sense that people often commit these acts under influence from (arguably aberrant ) traditional healers (an interpretation since commonly expressed by many people on social media and online news commentary platforms). In this context then, Dr Mabille would appear more guilty of imprecision and/or provocation in her remark than necessarily racism and/or hate speech.
As a regular commentator in the media, Dr Croucamp naturally would be aware that his comments necessarily could influence the perceptions and opinions of eNuus viewers. However, by adding a far more inflammatory slant to a Dr Mabille’s remark by failing to place it in its full and proper context and instead baselessly portraying it as an argument of black people’s racial genetic propensity, Dr Croucamp thus not only acted unethically, unprofessionally and with intellectual dishonesty, but also with grave social irresponsibility given our broader South African community’s sensitivity towards race. Ironically, Dr Croucamp’s misrepresentation during the TV interview was much more likely to fuel the flames of polarisation (as hate speech does), rather than counteracting it, as has since been clear from the reaction of members of the public on social media and online news commentary platforms. In short, he clearly contradicted and undermined his own alleged cause.
Secondly, my impression from reports in the media and Dr Croucamp’s Twitter account (though he has deleted several relevant tweets in recent days), is that Dr Croucamp had shown great haste in contacting the media (Kyknet’s eNuus in particular – he has a rather high media profile on Kyknet actuality programmes). He did not merely approach the University of Pretoria with a request that Dr Mabille’s remarks be investigated (even though she expressly made it clear that she made her remarks in a personal capacity), then contacting the media in the event the reaction was unsatisfactory. This shows an apparent desire by Dr Croucamp to publicise the matter as much as possible and (by simultaneously threatening to lay a complaint of hate speech at the Human Rights Commission) indeed in a provocative manner. In this context, however, presumed agent provocateur or not, it should have been even more crucial that Dr Croucamp’s motives, behaviour and comments would be beyond reproach.
Thirdly and finally, Dr Croucamp has evidently been involved in an ongoing war of words with Praag and Dan Roodt in particular, sparked by Dr Croucamp’s recent controversial comments about the ‘Afrikaner’. From what I can tell after reading up on the matter, his engagement with them has been highly crude and undignified. Whatever his personal views towards and perceptions of their provocations, he certainly has no basis of a moral high ground. Furthermore, it is my understanding from several sources that he fared poorly in a public debate against Dr Mabille in April, as well as during the occasion of another public debate (of which Dr Mabille was one of the organisers) at UP between Dr William Lane Craig and others in May.
Viewed in context with the above then, it throws further doubts on his true motives in sparking the debacle re Dr Mabille. Everything considered, it would appear that Dr Croucamp more than likely targeted Dr Mabille as an easy target for his own personal considerations rather than the pursuit of any presumed lofty ideals, and subsequently played the woman, not the ball.
To be sure, his actions during this debacle do not reflect favourably on his own integrity as a private individual, public political analyst and commentator, academic or representative of the University of Johannesburg at all.
Dr Mabille took responsibility for her actions, and I think it only right that Dr Croucamp does the same regarding his own. A public apology to Dr Mabille may be a good start.
Given the serious sensitivities of cases regarding race and racism, the need that such issues be debated and dealt with in a responsible manner in line with the advancement of the objectives of our Constitution, and in conjunction with the way that Dr Croucamp’s regrettable behaviour during this particular incident reflects on your university, I trust that you will seriously consider this matter and follow it up constructively with Dr Croucamp and other affected parties.
Regards,
Johann Botha
PS: For the record, I am not involved with Praag and do not identify myself with their activities in any way. As a private citizen, however, I am concerned with the fundamental principle of personal and social responsibility guiding one’s actions.
Dunkin’ Donuts has apologized for the “insensitivity” of an advertising campaign in Thailand featuring a woman in blackface makeup to promote a new chocolate flavored doughnut.
The Dunkin’ Donuts franchise in Thailand came under criticism Friday after Human Rights Watch called the advertisements “bizarre and racist.”
The company’s chief executive in Thailand initially defended the campaign, but the U.S. headquarters quickly followed up with an apology.
“We are working with our Thailand franchisee to immediately pull the ad. DD recognizes the insensitivity of this spot,” Dunkin’ Donuts said in a tweet posted on its official U.S. website after complaints erupted on Twitter, in a variety of blogs and in mainstream American media.
The local franchise launched the advertisement earlier this month to promote its new “Charcoal Donut.” In posters, TV commercials and on Facebook, the campaign shows a smiling woman with blackface makeup, bright pink lipstick and a jet black 1950s-style beehive hairdo holding up a bitten black doughnut. The slogan in Thai reads: “Break every rule of deliciousness.”
Critics say the image is reminiscent of 19th and early 20th century American stereotypes for black people that are now considered offensive symbols of a racist era.
The New York-based Human Rights Watch said it was shocked to see an American brand name running an advertising campaign that would draw “howls of outrage” if released in the United States.
“It’s both bizarre and racist that Dunkin’ Donuts thinks that it must color a woman’s skin black and accentuate her lips with bright pink lipstick to sell a chocolate doughnut,” said Phil Robertson, the deputy Asia director for Human Rights Watch. “Dunkin’ Donuts should immediately withdraw this ad, publicly apologize to those it’s offended and ensure this never happens again.”
The campaign hasn’t ruffled many in Thailand, where it’s common for advertisements to inexplicably use racial stereotypes. A Thai brand of household mops and dustpans called “Black Man” uses a logo with a smiling black man in a tuxedo and bow tie. One Thai skin whitening cream runs TV commercials that say white-skinned people have better job prospects than those with dark skin. An herbal Thai toothpaste says its dark-colored product “is black, but it’s good.”
Hours before the apology was issued by Dunkin’ Donuts headquarters, the company’s chief executive in Thailand dismissed the criticism as “paranoid American thinking.”
“It’s absolutely ridiculous,” the CEO Nadim Salhani said in a telephone interview. “We’re not allowed to use black to promote our doughnuts? I don’t get it. What’s the big fuss? What if the product was white and I painted someone white, would that be racist?”
Salhani said that the Thai franchise of Dunkin’ Donuts operates independently of the American operation and that doughnut sales have increased about 50 percent since the campaign was launched around two weeks ago, which he attributed to curiosity about the new advertisements.
“Not everybody in the world is paranoid about racism,” said Salhani, a Lebanese expatriate in Thailand who said his teenage daughter was the model featured in the campaign. “I’m sorry, but this is a marketing campaign, and it’s working very well for us.” – AP
She said “open the boom” but the security guard heard her say “you baboon”, reports the Pretoria News. Next thing she was arrested, driven in the back of a police van to the Sunnyside police station and locked up for the next five hours in a communal cell with about eight black men.
Now Deborah Lynn Greaves of Centurion has won R50 000 from the police.
Greaves, 50, of Centurion instituted a R300 000 damages claim against the minister of police following her ordeal.
Her nightmare started when she was due to attend a training course at a conference facility in Sunnyside.
She tried to park inside a basement parking garage but was told by the security guard that parking was reserved and she should park in the street.
Greaves said she had previously parked inside, even though she did not have an access card.
That day, she parked in the street but when she returned the next day, she again tried to park inside.
Again she was denied entry, but this time, she said, the security guard was aggressive and screamed at her. He wanted her to park outside.
She phoned a colleague to arrange parking inside the parking garage for her, as she felt her car was unsafe outside. The colleague handed her his access card so she could drive into the basement.
But when she left that afternoon, the security guard refused to open the boom for her to exit. Greaves said she told him to “open the boom” and that “the way in which you do things is stupid”.
He apparently mistook what she told him as “you are a baboon” and that he was “stupid”.
Nevertheless, he opened the boom and she drove off.
She returned the following day and while attending training she was called by the course co-ordinator. He told her the police were waiting for her outside.
She was told by two policemen that she was under arrest.
Greaves was threatened that if she did not get into the police van, she would be cuffed.
The police drove her at high speed to the police station.
She said she was terrified and was being thrown around in the back of the van.
At the police station she was told that she was being held for crimen injuria.
She had to spend five terrifying hours in a cell with men, under conditions she described as filthy. Her lawyer had her freed on a warning at about five that afternoon.
Greaves said she was so traumatised that she had to receive counselling from a psychiatrist, who diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder.
The police initially denied all the allegations made by Greaves in papers before the Pretoria High Court.
Her lawyer, Konrad Rontgen, was ready to proceed on Monday, but just before the case was called the police indicated they would settle the matter by paying Greaves R50 000.
Greaves said she was happy it was over, but she was disappointed with the settlement amount.
“This does not compensate me for the humiliation, fear and embarrassment I had to endure. I still get nightmares and I become extremely fearful when I see a security boom.
“This was totally unnecessary and now the taxpayer has to pay for the wrongs of the police. All I wanted to do was to park.”
The charge levelled against her was that of crimen injuria, but the prosecutor refused to entertain this and dismissed the case. – Pretoria News
Steffen Seibert, spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel
Germany’s government Friday rejected charges that its police were racist that arose from an inquiry into authorities’ decade-long failure to uncover a neo-Nazi cell accused of shooting dead nine immigrants.
“The federal police do not behave in racist fashion and have not done so in the past,” said Jens Teschke, a spokesman for Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich. “We strongly reject this allegation.”
He spoke one day after an official inquiry concluded that the failure to find the cell accused in the slayings of one Greek and eight Turks was because of incompetence in the police and intelligence services.
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, welcomed the findings, saying, “The results will be thoroughly analysed, in particular the measures for reform that were proposed.”
The inquiry found the police trapped themselves in a false theory that a Turkish gang had formed in Germany to kill compatriots.
One member of the 11-member commission of inquiry, Social Democratic legislator Eva Hoegl, upset police unions by telling the media the disarray resulted from “structures of suspicion and prejudice in the police that often have a racist stamp.”
However, the example she gave was not connected to the botched inquiry into the National Socialist Underground (NSU) but claims last year that a small, specialized force that patrols trains and airports tends to ask black people to show their identity more than whites.
The force, the Federal Police, denied prejudice.
“We heard the allegations against the Federal Police …. with utter astonishment,” Teschke said. “The Federal Police had nothing to do with [the NSU inquiry].”
The inquiry chairman, Sebastian Edathy, earlier also denied the police were fundamentally racist, saying, “I don’t believe we have institutional racism, but I do believe that in everyday work, the police need to question their own stereotypes.”
Beate Zschaepe
Edathy, an opposition Social Democrat, said remedies included hiring more ethnic minorities to change the mentality of the police.
The inquiry into the killings from 2000 to 2007 ran parallel to a trial in Munich at which Beate Zschaepe, 38, is charged as an accomplice to the slayings. She is the only survivor of the three-member NSU. Two men died in a murder-suicide in 2011 that brought the gang to light. – dpa
Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan made a statement Friday guaranteed to make liberal media members’ heads spin.
During a discussion about Affirmative Action on PBS’s McLaughlin Group, Buchanan said, “Whites are the only group that you can discriminate against legally in America now”
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, HOST: Are you saying college admissions should be based on diversity?
ELEANOR CLIFT, NEWSWEEK/DAILY BEAST: Yeah, I mean, I think lots of factors go into diversity. I think race can be one of them, and I think the Supreme Court so far agrees with that.
MCLAUGHLIN: 67 percent opposed it, 28, you’re in the minority. Only 28 percent are in favor of it.
PAT BUCHANAN: It should be based on excellence, John.
CLIFT: As long as the Supreme Court agrees with me, I’m fine.
BUCHANAN: It should be like the NFL: whoever’s the best player plays, and whoever does best academically should be advanced. What is wrong with that?
MICHELLE BERNARD: Here’s a question I have. One of the things I always say because I think you can measure diversity in a lot of ways, but I think there’s an argument to be said that the greatest Affirmative Action program that there is in the country is being born white. There is a natural assumption when you are applying to institutions of higher education that you are excellent or you are more superb than others.
BUCHANAN: With due respect, whites are the only group that you can discriminate against legally in America now. – newsbusters.com
Josh Earnest, principal deputy White House press secretary, said he was not familiar with the murder of Australian jogger Chris Lane during Wednesday’s White House briefing.
When asked by Fox News chief White House correspondent Ed Henry about the Chris Lane case, Earnest responded, “I’m not familiar with it, actually.”
Henry explained the case in brief to Earnest looking for reaction to the Oklahoma shooting death of Lane at the hands of “bored” African-American teens who thought it would be “fun” to kill somebody.
“This sounds like a pretty tragic case. I wouldn’t want to get ahead of the legal process here and it’s clear that law enforcement officials are involved and are investigating,” Earnest said. “But any act of violence is something that — the president I think himself has spoken pretty eloquently about violence in our communities and he stood at this podium a few weeks ago where he talked about his concern about the impact that violence is having on, in particular, young people in this country.”
Henry pressed Earnest, noting that the President spoke about slain teen Trayvon Martin in the Rose Garden and in the briefing room.
“Why hasn’t [the president] spoken out about this? In this case, you said there was a judicial proceeding. There was one in the Trayvon Martin case. He spoke out extensively on that one,” Henry said.
“There are some people in this room I don’t thing who would agree with you that the president spoke out extensively on it,” Earnest responded.
Henry reiterated his point explaining that the President did speak about the Martin case in response to a question prior to the trial and then spoke about it after the trial in the briefing room.
“He expressed his concerns about the impact of violence on communities across the country and he talked about a number of things that the government can do, but also a number of things that we can do in our communities, whether it’s parents, churches, and communities can do to try to address the impact of violence and whether there is more we can do to try to protect our children,” Earnest said. – Daily Caller
In a testament to the depravity of black thug culture, an Australian collegiate baseball player attending school in America was killed by three teenagers looking for fun, police reported. Christopher Lane, who was out for a jog in the town of Duncan, Oklahoma where his girlfriend and her family live, was targeted at random after he passed a home where the boys were staying. ”They saw Christopher go by, and one of them said: ‘There’s our target,’” said Police Chief Danny Ford. ”The boy who has talked to us said, ‘We were bored and didn’t have anything to do, so we decided to kill somebody.’”
James Edwards, 15, Chancey Luna, 16, and Michael Jones, 17, have all been charged as adults in Lane’s death. Edwards and Luna, both black Americans, have been charged with first degree murder, and will be tried as adults per Oklahoma law. Jones, who is white, was charged with using a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon and with accessory to first-degree murder after the fact. He will also be tried in adult court, but is still considered a youthful offender. If convicted, Edwards and Luna face life in prison without parole. Jones, who wept in court as he tried to talk about the crime before being cut off by the judge, faces anywhere from two years to life in prison. Edwards and Luna are being held without bond. Jones’s bond is set at $1 million.
Police noted that Lane was jogging through an affluent section of Duncan around 3 p.m. local time when a car carrying the three teenagers pulled up behind him. In court, prosecutor Jason Hicks alleged that Luna was in the back seat, Edwards was in the passenger seat and Jones was driving the vehicle. Luna allegedly shot Lane in the back with a .22 caliber revolver that has yet to be recovered. ”We were bored,” Luna reportedly admitted to authorities.
Hicks, who called the boys “thugs,” noted that Edwards found the slaying amusing. “I believe this man is a threat to the community and should not be let out,” Hicks said during the bail hearing. “He thinks it’s all a joke.” Edwards, who has had earlier run-ins with the law, had also been in court on Friday, apparently after the crime had been committed, to sign papers related to his juvenile probation.
James Johnson, who called police to tell them the trio was hiding in the carpark of the Immanuel Baptist Church about 5pm on Friday, described them in all-too-familiar terms. He called them “troublemakers” and “bullies” with no parental supervision, and said that Edwards had threatened to kill his own son using Facebook. ”They threatened to kill my son because they are in a gang, the Crips, and were trying to get my son in it and I wouldn’t let him do it.,” Johnson explained. “I told him he couldn’t run with those boys. He’s a little terrified.” Police Chief Ford believes that the teens’ wanted “to make a name for themselves” on the streets.
Indeed, a dark picture emerges as one peruses the social media sites teens like these invariably use to brag about themselves and their exploits. Before it was removed, Chauncy Luna’s Facebook page revealed he goes by the alias Baby Drake. It showed photos of him posing with friends, including Edwards, and flashing gang signs. Two pictures on James “Lilbuggy” Edwards’ Facebook page are also quite revealing. One shows a handgun, and several others show staggeringly large sums of cash. Both may be explained by another photo containing hashtags suggesting he was a member of the Crips. There is also a photo of him posing with a shotgun. ”Bitch we up them poles,” Edwards says in the clip, “F— ‘em.” (A dismantled shotgun with the serial numbers ground off was found in the car, but it is not currently known if it is the same weapon).
Tweets on Edwards’ Twitter account suggest he is racist. On April 29, he tweeted “90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM.” On July 15, shortly after George Zimmerman was acquitted, Edwards tweeted “Ayeee I knocced out 5 woods since Zimmerman court!:) lol shit ima keep sleepin shit! #ayeeee.” “Woods” is a term used to denigrate white people. Yet Chief Ford, who has yet to see Edwards’ social media, told the Daily Caller a hate crime charge is not likely. “I’m not discounting the stuff that’s on there, but they do that for shock and effect,” he contended.
The real shock and effect evidenced by this case so far is the deafening silence of the racial grievance industry along with their media and celebrity enablers who apparently see no way to exploit this tragedy. Jesse Jackson is the lone exception, if one considers a single tweet much of an effort. “Praying for the family of Chris Lane,” Jackson said Wednesday on Twitter. “This senseless violence is frowned upon and the justice system must prevail.” Not a word, however from people like Al Sharpton, Attorney General Eric Holder, or President Obama, all of whom were willing to weigh in on the Trayvon Martin case on numerous occasions.
Former Congressman Allen West directly addressed the reticence of what he characterized as the “race industry crew.” On Twitter, he castigated Obama. “‘We were bored & decided to kill somebody.’ 3 black teens shoot white jogger.Who will POTUS identify w/this time?” West tweeted Tuesday afternoon. West’s Facebook posting was equally caustic. “[S]hall we hear anything from the race industry crew, Hollywood elites, or maybe Oprah Winfrey? The issue is not about proliferation of guns in America. This is about a failing black community and the fact that its young men are desensitized to violence because a gangsta culture promotes it,” West wrote.
The apologists for the status quo invariably point to America’s long and tattered track record of racism, going all the way back to the days of slavery, to explain the cultural dysfunction behind such heinous crimes. Yet as black conservatives such as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have pointed out on numerous occasions, black Americans were making steady progress in times that were far more racist (and poorer) than today. Yet today, in a time of vastly more racial equality and wealth redistribution, black men between the ages of 14 and 24 commit homicides at a rate 10 times that of young white and Hispanic males combined, according to a study by Northeastern University.
The key factors observers like Sowell and Williams frequently point to are the destruction of the nuclear family and the widespread glorification of social dysfunction. Though they affect all racial groups to varying degrees (after all, one conspirator in the Lane killing was white) no one can dispute their devastating effects on the black community. Rather than address this, many politicians, businessmen and entertainers hypocritically glamorize, enrich themselves and further their careers by promoting this culture of destruction. Thus, as Barack Obama wonders aloud how America “can bolster and reinforce our African-American boys,” he pals around with rapper Jay-Z, who has become a multi-millionaire rapping about guns, dope, misogyny and gratuitous violence. Amazon.com is selling a line of Trayvon Martin hoodies, while Ebony magazine has published several covers with celebrities dressed in the same thug-symbolizing attire. A director at the Smithsonian Institute expressed an interest in displaying Martin’s hoodie there, before the idea was ultimately rejected.
Yet when violence occurs, “civil rights” leaders like Jesse Jackson call it “senseless” and carefully avoid drawing attention to the real problem. The same goes for all the celebrities who have lined up to turn Trayvon Martin into a cause célèbre, but are currently nowhere to be found or heard on the Lane case. And despite wall-to-wall media coverage of this atrocity, principal deputy White House press secretary Josh Earnest professed ignorance about the case, before claiming he “wouldn’t want to get ahead of the legal process here.” When Fox News chief White House correspondent Ed Henry noted President Obama was more than willing to get ahead of the legal process with regard to Trayvon Martin, Earnest offered up a generic response about the president’s “concerns” regarding the “impact of violence and whether there is more we can do to try to protect our children.”
We can’t protect our children from a thug culture when those who know better can’t be bothered to acknowledge its existence because it doesn’t accrue to their political advantage. And while the social dysfunction proliferates, blessed by the liberal and cultural elite, the racial divide widens. That is the real reason why the usual suspects have nothing to say about the killing of Christopher Lane. They know they, too, are part of the problem. – frontpagemag.com
Oprah Winfrey is a cultural mover and shaker. That much is clear after her historically inaccurate film The Butler, which portrays Ronald Reagan as a doddering racist and ignores the legacy of bigotry of Southern Democrats, finished first last week at the box office. Seventy-two percent of those who went to see the film cited Oprah’s participation as a factor in favor of their buying a ticket. Sadly, Oprah has used that power to push a false racial narrative directly at odds with the racial narrative pushed by The Butler.
First, The Butler’s racial narrative. The movie, as Oprah has said, begins with a lynching in 1926 and ends with President Barack Obama in the White House. The notion is that Obama marks the culmination of a centuries-long movement toward equality for blacks in America, a popular perspective that largely explains Obama’s election in 2008.
Then there’s Oprah’s actual racial narrative. In her view, President Obama remains an exception to a broader racist rule. Trayvon Martin, Oprah says, is just today’s Emmitt Till, murdered in 1955 by the Ku Klux Klan. So what if racism in America is at an all-time low? So what if the vast majority of Americans are not only not racist, but actively anti-racist? That’s not enough for Oprah. “A lot of people think if they think they’re not using the n-word themselves, they physically aren’t using the n-word themselves, and do not harbor ill will towards black people that it’s not racist,” she said in a comment that is as challenged syntactically as it is intellectually.
This is paranoia of the highest sort. And it is absolutely crippling to America’s future. If a huge number of Americans believe that racism that is not present in action nonetheless lurks beneath the surface of our life, waiting to burst forth in a conflagration of hate such as that which allegedly claimed Trayvon, there can be no shared future.
But many on the left, including Oprah, apparently don’t want a shared future. They want emotional blackmail. The corollary to the belief that racism hides in the nooks and crannies of the white personality is the belief that the only way to expunge such racism by embracing the philosophy of people like Oprah. If you see The Butler, you’re buying a racial indulgence; if you vote Obama, you’re buying a racial indulgence. Lee Daniels, director of The Butler, told CBS News that white extras cried during the filming of the movie. Presumably, in his view, that meant they were not racist. But what about all the Americans who will never shed tears over The Butler? How will they demonstrate their non-racism, even if there has never been a shred of evidence that they are in fact racist?
That seems to be the perspective not just of many black Americans like Oprah and Daniels, but the perspective of many in various minority communities. For example, in California, Governor Jerry Brown recently signed a law declaring that transgender children must be allowed to enter bathrooms of their choice and join sports teams of their choice. The idea here is that this will minimize bullying, as though most Americans bear children with gender identity issues some sort of ill will. The truth is far simpler: Americans have a right to worry that their children will feel uncomfortable in a bathroom next to someone of the opposite sex, no matter what that person believes him or herself to be. That’s not wrong. That’s normal. But the onus has now been placed on children without gender identity issues to explain why they feel uncomfortable at the urinal next to a girl, even if they’ve never bullied a transgender child.
That’s nasty. More than that, it’s an attempt to shape values by implying that everyone is in need of having their fundamental racism, sexism, homophobia overcome by government action. Americans have nothing left to discuss. America is now a country where whites are often perceived as racist until proven innocent. And the only way to prove yourself innocent is to perform acts approved by the leftist establishment.
None of this helps black Americans. All it does is perpetuate power for those who divide us in pursuit of political gain. Hillary Clinton, who has begun touring the country invoking the supposed racism of voter ID supporters, is merely the latest race hustler to attempt this pernicious trick. Unfortunately, it seems to work. And that means that Oprah’s racial narrative is far more influential than The Butler’s.
Ben Shapiro is an attorney and writer and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, and author of the new book “Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How The Left Took Over Your TV” from Broadside Books, an imprint of HarperCollins.
The elevation of Mrs Doreen Lawrence to Britain’s highest parliamentary chamber, the House of Lords, should come as no surprise to seasoned observers of the British political elite.
Baroness Lawrence
For as the mother of arguably the most important murder victim in modern British history, she occupies a special place in the political firmament somewhere beside Bob Geldof and the late Princess Diana — perhaps equivalent to Rosa Parks or the parents of the sainted Trayvon Martin.
While no-one can put a name to any of the dozens of teenage Blacks murdered every year in London since then, Doreen’s son Stephen Lawrence was different — he was killed by Whites and his death was an opportunity to create the most potent weapon that has ever been aimed at the British people: mass demonization.
In an earlier age, tactical area bombing was used to deliver a relentless, sustained and never-ending barrage to cow a civilian population. But instead of the RAF this time the propaganda barrage was delivered by the media and Doreen Lawrence played a vital role as a living symbol of the evils of White racism.
So in a sense, her ennoblement is for services to the political elite, the human-rights industrial complex, the bureaucratic class, the media and for everyone else who has benefited from the murder which took place twenty years ago this year.
Several hundred miles to the north in the Lancashire seaside resort of Blackpool another mother Mrs Karen Downes could be forgiven for allowing herself a smile of bitter resignation at this latest accolade.
It is unlikely that Doreen Lawrence and Karen Downes will ever meet but the two mothers have much in common. Both had children murdered by racists and both have had to fight long battles against police incompetence and official indifference.
But there the similarity ends. For while Jamaica-born Mrs Lawrence has become a national heroine, lionised by the establishment, feted by the media and showered with honours, Mrs Downes is a shunned and marginalised figure who does not know if the killers of her daughter will ever be brought to justice.
The discrepancy in the treatment of the two cases can only be understood through the prism of the victimhood hierarchy. While Mrs Lawrence is the mother of a Black teenager, Mrs Downes and her daughter both belong to the despised White working class.
It is hard to overestimate the importance of the events that followed the knifing to death of Stephen Lawrence in a random attack at a bus stop in Eltham south east London in 1993 and it could well be argued that the crime was the single most transformative event in the creation of the new settlement imposed on the country.
A botched police investigation and collapsed trial triggered a full scale judicial inquiry in 1999 led by Lord McPherson and this had two effects. The first was the branding of the Metropolitan Police in perpetuity as guilty of vague and ill-defined “institutional racism”.
The second was the demonization of the White working class as irredeemably racist and hate-filled bigots who had no more call on the sympathies of right-thinking citizens than did the German people in the aftermath of World War II.
The elevation of this blood libel to a central place in the new settlement had one overriding political purpose — it meant the objections of working class Whites to mass immigration or multiculturalism could be safely cast aside as of no account.
The case was swiftly picked up by the media, politicians and human rights lawyers and barristers who smelled a winning cause célèbre and began jostling furiously for the anticipated glory.
In their pursuit of the five suspects in the killing of Stephen Lawrence normal conventions such as the assumption of innocence and contempt of court were ignored — and it was apparent that their White working class aspect produced an additional frisson of loathing.
As the media bombardment followed — the acres of newsprint, TV documentaries the TV dramas, the feature film — one message was unmistakeable; all working class Whites had to share the blame for what happened to Stephen Lawrence.
Finally in 2011, after an estimated 16 separate inquiries and a failed trial, the House of Commons decided to overturn the centuries-old law of double-jeopardy solely for the purpose of prosecuting the Stephen Lawrence killers. Convictions were duly obtained on two of the five suspects in what was condemned as a showtrial.
But there was far too much political capital to be had from the saga to leave it at that and, like a medieval religious play, there are now frequent re-enactments of the martyrdom of Stephen Lawrence in which self-aggrandising politicians, loudmouthed race-hustlers, sanctimonious journalists and grandstanding human-rights lawyers — and Doreen Lawrence — all play their appointed parts.
This summer’s passion play has not disappointed. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Shadow Home Secretary, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Committee were all arguing furiously about how best to satisfy Mrs Lawrence’s demands for yet another public inquiry. They duly obliged and in July two new reviews were launched into the conduct of the police in 1993.
It is enlightening to compare all this activity with the experience of Mrs Karen Downes whose 14-year old daughter Charlene went missing on 1st November 2003 while apparently making her way home from Blackpool’s north pier after school.
She had been in the habit of hanging out at the Funny Boyz kebab shop in Dickson Road ran by Iyad Albattikhi and Mohammed Reveshi who were known to target young White girls by plying them with cigarettes and alcohol.
But initially the police were reluctant to take action or even provide the family with basic information. It was only when Karen approached the local newspaper that things began to move. The main suspects were reported boasting to friends that the body had been put into kebabs, and a proper investigation was launched. Eventually surveillance recordings produced apparently damning statements and the men were duly arrested and tried.
In one conversation Mr Reveshi was reported to have said to Mr Albattikhi: “Well, hopefully I [done] it properly you know . . . he thought he saw me cutting her body up…
“Do you remember she was bleeding to death?” “Yes,” replied Mr Albattikhi. “So that she made a mess,” Mr Reveshi allegedly added. Later in the transcript Mr Reveshi allegedly says: “The last one then, it was the last deep one and then it was the [heart] . . . that finally killed her.” …
At one point Mr Reveshi said: “I’m so worried and you was the one who killed her.” …
But the case sensationally collapsed in court because the prosecution had botched the presentation of the evidence. The jury were unable to reach a unanimous decision, and instead of requesting a re-count with a majority decision, the judge dismissed the case.
The two Muslims received half a million pounds in compensation for their ordeal but despite this the police have admitted there are no other suspects in the frame.
Since then there has been no movement in the Charlene Downes case despite reports of compelling fresh evidence, new witnesses, allegations of jury-tampering and the fact that the double-jeopardy law is no longer an obstacle to another prosecution of the same men.
Meanwhile, down south Mrs Doreen Lawrence is still receiving more accolades and awards to add to the OBE she received in 2003 for her services to community relations.
The gleaming £10 million Stephen Lawrence Centre was opened five years ago and is the base for the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust, set up by Doreen in 1998. This body, of which Doreen is a director, has become one of London’s largest training providers, not least because of the millions poured in by local and national government and corporate sponsors.
For Baroness Lawrence — as we must learn to call her — the awards, the accolades, the public appearances and the praise just never seem to stop rolling. Last summer, in front of an international television audience of millions, she was an Olympic flagbearer, alongside Muhammad Ali and former UN secretary general Ban-Ki Moon.
And then she received the lifetime achievement award in the UK media’s nationally televised “Pride of Britain Awards” to a standing ovation in November 2012. Her portrait “No Woman No Cry” rendered by one of our most fashionable modern artists, hangs in the Tate Gallery.
The Stephen Lawrence Trust has become one of the biggest brands in the charity sector. There is the Memorial Service — attended by the Prime Minister — the Woman of the Year Award, the star-studded concert at London’s largest venue, the O2 Arena — all in the name of Stephen Lawrence. Not to mention the Memorial Lecture which has been given by Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales.
For any ambitious young politico on the make a photo-opportunity with Doreen is not to be passed by. There is every possibility thanks to the Stephen Lawrence Legacy black tie gala dinners which have become prime networking events for the great and good.
The Dorchester Hotel in Park Lane will be the venue for the next one. Recent dinners have featured the Home Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition, the editor of the Daily Mail and the editor of the Mirror not to mention the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police again.
As if all this did not keep Doreen busy enough, she has been awarded honorary degrees by the Universities of East Anglia, Bradford, Staffordshire, Greenwich, York, East London and Bishop Grosseteste University College, Lincoln. She also received an Honorary Fellowship from Goldsmith’s College.
She has a seat on important government panels and charity boards. Her autobiography is called, without irony, And Still I Rise.
Despite being nominally above the political fray, Mrs Lawrence has waded in when it suits her, and her statements that the police are still institutionally racist are guaranteed to dominate the headlines. In fact her supposed special insights into every subject from schooling to knife crime are given special weight by an ever doting media.
It is educational to compare this with the disappearance of Charlene Downes. It could hardly have happened at a more sensitive time. Despite undeniable evidence of organised grooming of White underage girls by Muslims in towns across the north of England the authorities refused to act or even speak out on the matter.
Instead the mainstream parties together with the police, the BBC, local papers and social services, closed ranks and refused to discuss the matter. The only politician speaking out was the British National Party’s Nick Griffin, and it was on the back of this issue that the BNP won four local elections in Bradford.
Then only months after Charlene disappeared, the BBC broadcast secretly recorded public speeches by the BNP leader and his colleague Mark Collett in which they vociferously spoke out against Muslim grooming gangs and the authorities refusal to act on the matter.
The BBC handed footage to the police and the two were duly charged with “using words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up racial hatred,” only to be sensationally acquitted after a retrial at Leeds Crown Court in 2006.
As for Karen Downes and her family, it would be fair to say that the intervening years have not treated them kindly. Karen has been on the receiving end of a campaign of vile abuse mounted by local left-wingers who crowed their delight at the collapse of the trial of the men accused of killing her daughter. A commemorative bench inscribed to Charlene and placed in her favourite park was thrown into a pond, and the police do not even return her phone calls any more.
She has taken to mounting ad hoc protests outside the kebab bar in Dickson Street but the police have issued her with a harassment order banning her from approaching the takeaway and warning her if she does not stop she could be jailed for racial harassment.
Most weekends Karen Downes can be found forlornly searching among the arcades of the north pier in a vain attempt to catch sight of the daughter she last saw ten years ago this November. – The Occidental Observer
Australia’s new race discrimination commissioner starts in the job today and he’s got his sights firmly set on tackling the modern face of racial prejudice.
Dr Tim Soutphommasane is a 30-year-old first generation Australian, whose parents fled Laos in the mid-1970s, he grew up in south west Sydney.
He’ll now spearhead the nation’s response to racism and discrimination and he’s keen to craft strategies to help eliminate casual bigotry and cyber racism.
Presenter:Emily Bourke
Speaker:Dr Tim Soutphommasane, Australia’s new Race Discrimination Commissioner
EMILY BOURKE: Australia’s new race discrimination chief says racism is still far too common.
TIM SOUTPHOMMASANE: About 20 per cent of Australians report that they have experienced race hate talk, so racial slurs or verbal abuse. Eleven per cent report that they have been excluded from the workplace or social activities on the basis of their skin colour or ethnicity.
EMILY BOURKE: As a migrant himself, Tim Soutphommasane, has experienced racism in Australia first-hand.
TIM SOUTPHOMMASANE: Well I’m a first generation Australian of Chinese and Lao heritage. It’s a mouthful when I say that to people. But I think it sums up my cultural identity. I have experienced racial slurs. It can be very confronting. It’s very unpleasant, but most of all it’s about a denial of respect and equality.
EMILY BOURKE: Dr Soutphommasane says the modern face of racism is increasingly casual.
TIM SOUTPHOMMASANE: For instance, you might have someone making light of an issue or cracking a joke and when someone complains there, the response is perhaps along the lines of well, come on, just have a bit of a laugh, don’t take yourself too seriously. And I think that attitude belittles the experience of racial prejudice and discrimination.
It’s not just about hurt feelings, or about mere offence. Part of the cultural shift that needs to take place on casual racism is to recognise that racism is as much about impact as it is about intention.
EMILY BOURKE: But he adds racism among young Australians has followed the same trend as schoolyard bullying – it’s moved online.
TIM SOUTPHOMMASANE: Cyber racism among younger Australians is a serious emerging problem. There’s no question that if we do not tackle this issue, we may be creating further challenges of social cohesion and we may be cultivating a sense of indifference to racial abuse when it happens online.
EMILY BOURKE: In his new role, Dr Soutphommasane says he wants to start a new conversation about racism and how to stop it.
TIM SOUTPHOMMASANE: What it’s going to require is change at the everyday level in civil society, in your workplaces, in your schools and indeed in your backyards, at those barbecues, when someone says something that’s off-colour.
Perhaps in the past we’ve been happy to let that slide and not create a bit of a fuss. But if we’re prepared to take a stand and prepared to persuade someone to see racism from the perspective of another person, then perhaps we have an opportunity here to achieve a generational shift in our thinking. – ABC
Jeff Mirza, who was born in Pakistan but brought up in Essex, was questioned over the use of the term in his act “Meet Abu Hamsta and Paki Bashir” at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival in Britain.
The complaint came from another man of Pakistani background, who claimed he was upset by a poster for the show, which attempts to “reclaim” the use of the racially offensive term.
Mr Mirza, 49, was dressed in character as a butcher, called Paki Bashir, when he was questioned at the police station on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh. He was warned that he could be arrested and charged if he continued to use the poster, although he is continuing to do so.
Mr Mirza said: “How on earth can I be accused of racism against my own community?”
His act centres on jokes about Pakistan and the wider Islamic world. His main character, Bashir, tells the audience he loves his family, “otherwise of his workforce” and says of Pakistan: “We also have a thriving gay community and they are also known as clerics.”
Other characters include Hamsta, a Saudi said to be al Qaeda’s ambassador of the arts in Luton. There is also Jameela, a woman in a burka, who tells how she was widowed when her first husband blew himself up as a suicide bomber at the third attempt.
Mr Mirza was questioned after a man took a leaflet which he was handing out on the High Street in Edinburgh and went to a police station. “I followed him into the station and … told him my daughter at the age of four had been racially abused and for many years after I had been angry when I heard that word.
“But a few years ago I realised that I am a Paki and I should be proud of that. Pakistan means Land of the Pure and what’s wrong with that?
“I have been called Paki so many times that the only thing for me was to turn it around and make people laugh with me. Black people use the N word as a sort of reclaiming it in songs and on TV and I have never seen any of them arrested.”
A police spokesman said: “Police have a certain amount of room to give guidance and in this case it has been decided that there will be no further action.” – The Telegraph
Hillary Clinton began her 2016 march to the White House last week, and it wasn’t a promising debut. The former first lady and Senator used her first big policy speech since leaving the State Department to portray American election laws as fundamentally racist. The speech was longer on anecdotes than statistics, so allow us to fill in some of the holes.
“In 2013, so far, more than 80 bills restricting voting rights have been introduced in 31 states,” Mrs. Clinton told her political base of lawyers at the American Bar Association. She portrayed these laws as part of an effort reaching back years to “disproportionately impact African-Americans, Latino and young voters.” And she threw the Supreme Court in as part of this racist conspiracy, assailing its recent decision finding the “preclearance” section of the Voting Rights Act to be unconstitutional.
She claimed the High Court had “struck at the heart” of the law, though all it did was eliminate a section that had forced such states as Mississippi to meet higher legal burdens for election laws than other states with a worse current record of minority voter participation. “Now not every obstacle is related to race,” Mrs. Clinton added, “but anyone who says that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in American elections must not be paying attention.”
No one thinks racial discrimination has vanished from American life or the human condition. But as for minority voting, Mrs. Clinton is the one who hasn’t been paying attention. In particular, she must have missed the May 2013 Census Bureau study on “The Diversifying Electorate—Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent Elections).”
The study, based on data from the November 2012 Current Population Survey, shows that minority voter turnout nationwide has been rising—dramatically so. Take blacks, who as recently as 1996 had a low voter turnout rate of 53%.
As the nearby chart shows, black turnout has jumped in each of the last four presidential elections. In 2012, black turnout as a share of all eligible voters exceeded the turnout of non-Hispanic white voters—66.2% to 64.1%. Nearly five million more African-Americans voted in 2012 (17.8 million) than voted in 2000 (12.9 million). In both 2008 and 2012, black voters even exceeded their share of the eligible black voting age population. In 2012, blacks made up 12.5% of the eligible electorate but 13.4% of those voting.
Having Barack Obama at the top of the ticket no doubt helped this black voter mobilization, but the trend shows that the surge preceded his candidacy. Remember when liberals portrayed Bill Clinton as “America’s first black President”? The black turnout surge accelerated after Mr. Clinton’s last election. Such a large increase in black voter turnout over 16 years would seem to refute the claim by Mrs. Clinton that racial obstacles to voting are increasing.
Mrs. Clinton ignores all of this and focuses instead on anecdotes, while raising alarm about the voter ID laws that have passed in the last decade. She specifically raises fears about North and South Carolina. Yet the same Census Bureau study shows that black turnout exceeded non-Hispanic white turnout by statistically significant rates in both Carolinas, and was higher in most states east of the Mississippi River outside of New England.
North Carolina, she says, has this year “pushed through a bill that reads like the greatest hits of voter suppression.” But that supposed horror show merely reduces early voting by a week, and bars same-day registration and extending voting hours by political whim. All of these are designed to preserve ballot integrity, which is as vital as voter access to public confidence in honest elections. Voters without an ID can get one free at the Department of Motor Vehicles and they can also cast a provisional ballot pending confirmation that they are legally registered.
By the way, Georgia, Indiana and Tennessee have some of the strictest voter ID laws of the more than 30 states that have such laws, yet the Census report says black turnout exceeded that of non-Hispanic whites in 2012 in all three. Where is the evidence that voter ID laws keep minorities from voting?
The disconnect between these facts and Mrs. Clinton’s assertions suggests that she is the one playing racial politics. The current narrow Democratic majority is largely a coalition based on gender and racial identity. It requires big turnout among single women and non-whites. As the Obama era winds down, the fear among Democrats is that these voters won’t have the same enthusiasm.
Mrs. Clinton can play the “first woman President” card, but she also needs large minority turnout. If she can’t motivate that turnout based on rising economic optimism or opportunity, which is hard given the Obama economic record, she and Democrats will play to racial fears to drive it. She wants a racially polarized electorate.
This is a tragedy for the country, and Republicans like Mitt Romney share the blame for doing so little to attract minority votes. But this strategy and Mrs. Clinton’s speech don’t bode well for a less polarized politics as Democrats try to extend their electoral dominance.
Mrs. Clinton billed her speech last week as the first of a series addressing what she called “eroding public trust” in government. Government could use the help, though note the irony that Mrs. Clinton’s party has been running the government even as its reputation sinks. In any case, stoking racial fears based on imaginary government racism won’t make Americans feel better about politics or government.
A version of this article appeared August 19, 2013, on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Hillary’s Racial Politics.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
