Here is a political tactic: If you’re looking to end an argument
because you’re losing, just accuse your opponents of being racists
or make similar charges. Then the argument will be all about
whether racism or prejudice was involved
– it will no longer be about the original issue and you’ll be
off the hook. Everyone, it seems, is now using this never-fail
formula.
Here is a political tactic: If you’re looking to end an argument because you’re losing, just accuse your opponents of being racists or make similar charges. Then the argument will be all about whether racism or prejudice was involved – it will no longer be about the original issue and you’ll be off the hook. Everyone, it seems, is now using this never-fail formula.
It was predictable that those who oppose Arizona’s new immigration law would declare it racist. What’s more instructive is how the charges of racism and other prejudice now show up regularly everywhere.Â
New York State Senator Kevin S. Parker recently declared that Republican lawmakers in the state legislature were white supremacists. According to the New York Times, Parker has all kinds of personal troubles including accusations that he shoved a former staff member, breaking her glasses, and he is expected to face trial this year on a felony assault charge stemming from an altercation with a photographer.
Starting a flap over racism is the perfect cover.
Before you shrug off the happenings in New York, look at San Francisco. The County Transportation Authority, consisting of San Francisco’s 11 supervisors, voted for $7 million in sales tax revenue to help bail out Muni last week. One supervisor suggested negotiating pay cuts for drivers and other operators – now guaranteed to be at least the second highest paid in the nation. Another member of the board immediately accused him of racism because the union was largely black.
All discussion of Muni’s humongous deficits and the pay and benefits guaranteed the operators immediately ceased as the charge of racism became the topic of discussion.
Mission accomplished.
We now commonly charge racism or imply discrimination whenever there is a disagreement. We’ve thrown every issue into the pejorative pot although each item has a different derogatory label designed, primarily, to stifle debate.  Â
If you oppose Israel’s policies in the occupied territories, you’re labeled anti-Semitic; if you are enraged by the actions of Islamic extremists, you’re Islamophobic; if you oppose abortion, you’re a woman-hater; don’t like the way affirmative action works or disagree with president Obama’s policies – you must be a racist, and no other choice is permitted.
It’s all about your point of view. Some non-Hispanic Caucasians see the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) as racist because it is not designed to help people like them. However, if LULAC were named LUNLAC (The League of United Non-Latino American Citizens) and was dedicated to advancing the political influence of non-Latinos, they would be in for it around here.
In his wonderfully funny article titled “On the Banned Wagon,” Tony Kornheiser ridiculed the 19 pages of “Guidelines on Ethnic, Racial, Sexual and Other Identification” issued by the Los Angeles Times designed to make sure no reader was possibly offended. He pointed out that the words “Hick” and “hillbilly” were banned, but “bumpkin” was okay. “So” – he predicted – “we can look for ‘The Beverly Bumpkins’ soon.”
When I first read that in 1993, the whole P.C. idea was so silly I laughed hysterically, but I’m not laughing anymore. Now, more than 16 years later, we have replaced debate with the all-purpose defense – feigned insult and phony charges of racism.  Â
I’m sure this subject made many of you uncomfortable and others angry, but before you send me any nasty e-mails be aware – I’m a member of a much-oppressed religious minority.
And if you say anything bad about this column, I’m going to accuse you of prejudice, and that’s the end of that argument.Â
Marty Richman is a Hollister resident.
