Go­ing where an­gels fear to tread ...

The Covington News - - THE SECOND OPINION - My­chal S. Massie is the for­mer National Chair­man of the con­ser­va­tive black think tank, Pro­ject 21-The National Lead­er­ship Net­work of Black Con­ser­va­tives; and a mem­ber of its’ par­ent think tank, the National Cen­ter for Pub­lic Pol­icy Re­search. You can find

My re­cent col­umn ti­tled “What White In­tel­lec­tu­als Are Afraid To Ad­mit” gen­er­ated quite a lot of de­bate. In fact, it cre­ated a mael­strom. There were peo­ple who ei­ther missed my point or re­fused to un­der­stand it, as well as those who sim­ply dis­agreed.

First of all, re­gard­ing the white in­tel­lec­tu­als I was ref­er­enc­ing, I iden­tify them as the col­lege and univer­sity pro­fes­sors, pro­gram hosts, and the talk­ing heads who ap­pear on their shows. Th­ese are the peo­ple who pon­tif­i­cate about top­ics that are easy to score points with and make the speaker ap­pear bold.

It’s easy to point to the school drop-out rate, dis­in­te­grat­ing fam­i­lies, un­em­ploy­ment, abor­tion rates, crime and in­car­cer­a­tion rates of black peo­ple be­cause they are hot-but­ton top­ics. It’s like the team cap­tain or coach shout­ing. “We’re go­ing to win!” at a pep rally. Of course, ev­ery­one cheers. We all know that the prob­lems I listed above are gen­uine and must be ad­dressed. But I ar­gue they are symp­toms of the much deeper prob­lem that white lib­er­als will deny, white con­ser­va­tives will flee from, and the so-called in­tel­lec­tu­als do not have the guts to speak out about. Even those blacks who are voic­ing the con­cerns men­tioned above are un­will­ing (save a se­lect few) and have no in­ter­est in ad­dress­ing the real core is­sues. So that leaves me be­cause I am will­ing to go where an­gels fear to tread.

The deeper core prob­lem that only a se­lect few are will­ing to ad­dress is that Amer­ica (as we know it) can­not sur­vive as a di­vided na­tion of two dis­tinct and di­ver­gent groups of peo­ple in­tent on de­riv­ing op­po­si­tional ben­e­fits from the same govern­ment.

Those of us who em­brace “na­tion­al­ity over in­di­vid­ual eth­nic­ity” un­der­stand that we are all Amer­i­cans, and, as such, seg­re­gat­ing and/or com­part­men­tal­iz­ing con­cerns based on skin color is coun­ter­pro­duc­tive to the whole of Amer­ica.

Those who em­brace “eth­nic­ity over na­tion­al­ity” be­lieve govern­ment should cater and con­form to them based on the color of their skin born out of guilt (specif­i­cally white guilt) pur­suant to in­jus­tices of the past and per­ceived and/or in­vented griev­ances of to­day.

Many peo­ple have told me that when their fam­i­lies came here gen­er­a­tions ago it was im­por­tant for them to as­sim­i­late into Amer­i­can cul­ture. But to­day Neo-Lenin­ist an­ar­chists would have us be­lieve that Amer­ica ben­e­fits only from eth­nic­ity mas­querad­ing as di­ver­sity and that as­sim­i­la­tion as we knew it was wrong. That’s quasi-true if you’re talk­ing about eth­nic restau­rants, but it is a damnable het­ero­doxy that es­pouses a sep­a­rate and dis­tinct group of peo­ple.

Which brings me back to blacks. Black peo­ple have come to be viewed as a sub­set of the whole to such an ex­tent that peo­ple are un­aware they have sub­scribed to and adopted it as fact.

As I have re­peat­edly pointed out, seg­rega­tive lan­guage and men­tal­ity have be­come ac­cepted and de­fended norms.

The prob­lems that Bill O’Reilly and oth­ers point to are viewed as prob­lems in “the black com­mu­nity”; they are viewed as “black prob­lems.” I say they aren’t black prob­lems, but Amer­i­can prob­lems.

I ar­gue that when we view them as Amer­i­can prob­lems, it al­lows us to fo­cus on them with a holis­tic ap­proach, not an ap­proach of what is best for a par­tic­u­lar eth­nic­ity. View­ing things through the prism of what is best for a par­tic­u­lar eth­nic­ity is what brought us the dis­crim­i­na­tion of race-based af­fir­ma­tive ac­tion whereby one form of prej­u­dice was re­placed with an­other.

Amer­ica can only sur­vive as, “One na­tion un­der God, with lib­erty and jus­tice for all.” It can­not sur­vive as a di­vided na­tion with color-coded lib­er­ties and jus­tice. Amer­ica can­not sur­vive with a govern­ment that is ex­pected to cater to spe­cific needs of peo­ple based on eth­nic­ity, jux­ta­posed to what is best for the peo­ple of Amer­ica as a whole.

Amer­ica as a na­tion is com­prised of Amer­i­cans. Pe­riod.

But along came Neo-Lenin­ist ele­ments that saw the po­lit­i­cal and mone­tary value of hav­ing two Amer­i­cas striv­ing based on eth­nic­ity ver­sus na­tion­al­ity. And I con­tend that it is th­ese Neo-Lenin­ist ele­ments who have, with pa­tience and cun­ning, trans­mo­gri­fied us into a per­pet­ual bat­tle­ground where one group is called upon to make ac­com­mo­da­tions to an­other based solely on color of skin.

I ar­gue that as long as we al­low, en­cour­age, and de­fend the dis­af­fec­tion of peo­ple un­der the guise of pride in eth­nic­ity, we will never be able to ad­dress the is­sues I listed in the be­gin­ning, be­cause even though they ex­ist among us as a whole, they will be viewed only as a color-coded con­cern.

Now you tell me: How many of those I iden­tify as white in­tel­lec­tu­als have the guts and/or in­ter­est in say­ing what I just did? For that mat­ter, how many Amer­i­cans in to­tal have the guts or the in­ter­est?

MY­CHAL MASSIE COLUM­NIST

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.