Header Ads

The New York Times Just Published One Of The Most Racist Articles You'll Ever Read

If Twitter is looking to weed out the racism on its platforms, it may want to start with The New York Times. The paper recently published one of the most racist tweets you'll ever see: "New Hampshire is 94% white. It is now trying to figure out how to change that."
Attached to the tweet is a bigoted screed about New Hampshire's whiteness infestation. It begins with the sad tale of a certain Catalina Celentano, who moved to the state and discovered, to her horror, that most of its residents speak English. "She found herself in an ethnic vacuum," the author reports. One worries how Ms. Celentano will react when she learns that the vast majority of the Earth is a non-Spanish speaking "vacuum."
The article continues:
New Hampshire, like its neighbors Vermont and Maine, is nearly all white. This has posed an array of problems for new arrivals, who often find themselves isolated and alone, without the comfort and support of a built-in community.
It has also posed problems for employers in these states, who find that their homogeneity can be a barrier to recruiting and retaining workers of different ethnicities and cultural background.
The issue prompted about 100 business leaders, government officials and members of nonprofit organizations to meet Thursday to search for ways that New Hampshire — which is 94 percent white — might lure other racial and ethnic groups, as well as younger people.
Let us now consider how this all would look if it was written about any other race. Imagine the reaction if The New York Times published something like this:
Detroit, like Atlanta and Birmingham, is nearly all black. This has posed an array of problems for new arrivals, who often find themselves isolated and alone, without the comfort and support of a built-in community.
It has also posed problems for employers in these states, who find that their homogeneity can be a barrier to recruiting and retaining workers of different ethnicities and cultural background.
The issue prompted about 100 business leaders, government officials and members of nonprofit organizations to meet Thursday to search for ways that Detroit — which is 83 percent black — might lure other racial and ethnic groups, as well as younger people.

Change just a few words and suddenly it becomes extremely racist. Or rather, its racism suddenly becomes apparent to even the most obtuse observer. It is racist to treat the preponderance of a certain race as an objective problem. It is racist to try and lower the percentages of a certain race just for the sake of lowering it. It is racist to move to an area and accuse it of being an "ethnic vacuum" just because most of the residents have a different ethnicity from your own. It would be racist if I went to South Korea and scolded it for being Korean, and it is racist if Hispanics follow a similar procedure when they come to America.

The only way to alleviate the racism in this case is to arbitrarily declare that racism, by definition, applies only to the prejudices of white people, but never to the prejudices against them. This is not the definition that you'll find in the dictionary, but it is the definition advanced by the left-wing extremists running academia. College students these days are actually taught that racism is a white invention and an exclusive tool of white oppressors. The hatred of white people by other races is justified, which therefore means it is not racism. But what about the racial hatred that a member of a non-white race may have towards some other non-white race? That doesn't exist, according to our nation's university professors.
But if we can see past this sort of brainwashing, it becomes apparent that the whiteness of New Hampshire is not in itself a problem. Just as the blackness of Detroit, or Baltimore, or Atlanta, is not in itself a problem. We do not need to go around breaking up racial monopolies. The white people of New Hampshire are not engaged in a conspiracy to keep the black folks away. They are just living where they want to live, and the racial dynamics are what they are. Racial diversity is fine if it happens organically, but it does not need to be, and should not be, a project undertaken by social engineers. It is extraordinarily racist to engineer diversity just for the sake of diluting some race's majority. And how can racism in the name of diversity lead to anything but more racism?


No comments