adidas superstar originals a racist term
It no secret that the Democratic Party has invested in identity politics both as a matter of principle and partisan advantage. Minorities are an indispensable part of the Democratic coalition, and appeals to racial and ethnic identity are central to Democratic policies and rhetoric. This might explain why the Democrats felt the need to offer five responses to the president State of the Union Address on Tuesday night: One aimed to white voters they lost in the last election, one in Spanish, one aimed at angry socialists and two responses from black women.
While I not a fan of identity politics on the left or the right, I have no objection to Democrats emphasizing inclusion, celebrating diversity etc. In fact, I think the Republicans are guilty of malpractice for doing so little to reach beyond their white, older, base.
But there a negative side to the Democrats obsession with claiming to be the sole respectable political party for non white people and immigrants. So powerful is this belief, it can lead not only to sanctimonious groupthink but also flights of Orwellian propagandizing.
One of my favorite examples came at the Republican National Convention in 2012. MSNBC landed an advance copy of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell speech. four years, McConnell planned to say, Obama has been running from the nation problems. He hasn been working to earn re election. He has been working to earn a spot on the PGA Tour. But Lawrence O of MSNBC saw through McConnell fa to the racist dog whistles beneath. we know exactly what he trying to do there. He trying to align . the lifestyle of , he explained, alluding to the sex scandals then befalling the famous (black!) golfer.
A more recent example comes in the novel claim that the term migration is a racist shibboleth. Chain migration is or was an utterly neutral term for the process by which legal immigrants sponsor members of their extended family to become citizens as well. Its purpose is to dehumanize immigrants. If you’re using that word, you’re declaring a side. Leader Nancy Pelosi, D Calif., refuses to even use the phrase. Sen. Dick Durbin, D Ill., insists the term which he used as recently as 2010 is offensive because African Americans came here in chains. Sen. Brian Schatz, D Hawaii, insists that ” ‘chain migration’ is an epithet. It was invented. The term is immigration, and it the way America has literally always worked. Sen.
According to the academic database JSTOR, there are hundreds of scholarly papers using the term, beginning in 1942. It came into wider circulation in the 1960s, no doubt because immigration policy was radically changed in 1965. LexisNexis dates the first appearance in a 1982 New York Times article about urbanization in India. Though that is probably because its database largely begins about then. The term wasn simply used about immigration issues in America but for migration patterns in other countries. Search for the term migration at the and you find scads of reports and papers using the term, many of which were produced under the Obama administration.
Julian Simon and my old boss Ben Wattenberg, who were as pro immigration as anybody, both used the phrase, without the slightest racial animus.
In short, the only inventing going on is coming from liberals determined to weaponize a term to make a policy and party they don like seem racist.
One can love, hate or be agnostic about chain migration or family unification (tomayto tomahto) without being a racist. Does the hate chain migration? Sure. But there is no transitive property here.
If Democrats are so confident that their political opponents are evil bigots, they shouldn have to work so hard to invent evidence to back up their claim.