Charles Blow is an op-ed columnist for the New York Times.
He is also, in my opinion, one of the many people who, often with complete sincerity, have only a selective understanding of what racism actually is and when it occurs.
Following are segments of Mr. Blow’s latest column, published in today’s edition. His comments are in rust, with my reactions in blue. Please read them through and decide for yourself whether I have a point:
The most recent disruption (of a Sanders event by #blacklives matter) came at an event in Seattle last weekend, where two female Black Lives Matter supporters prevented Sanders from speaking. Sanders has responded well to the most recent disruption, issuing a thorough and utterly impressive “Racial Justice” agenda that liberally quotes from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr…. Sanders “responded well” by standing down and allowing two people no one invited, to summarly stop his speech and rant into the microphone. That is not “…utterly impressive”, it is rude and insulting to everyone who came there to hear Mr. Sanders, not them. And Sanders did not respond well, he capitulated, presumably because he feared offending people who should not have been there in the first place. Since media, The Times very much included, have made #blacklivesmatter into a cause celebre, instead of pointing out that the only Black lives which matter to them are the ones they can mine for political value, while the other 99% do not matter at all, Sanders apparently felt he had no choice but to do so. Which is a sad commentary on all sides – #blacklivesmatter, Bernie Sanders…and Charles Blow.
But, not all of Sanders’ supporters could muster his magnanimity. It wasn’t magnanimity, it was capitulation. Some were outraged. As they should have been. They came out to hear Sanders, not two intruders who expropriated the microphone. The protesters were seen as disrespectful and indecorous. They were. Sanders was not only seen as a bad target, he was one of the worst targets because he has a long history of civil rights activism, including participating in the 1963 March on Washington and hearing the King himself. All true.
Some irritation was understandable. But some went too far, repaying what they saw as rudeness with what I saw as crudeness. The conspiracy theories began to swirl and the invectives – including some racist and sexist ones – began to flow. It exposed something that isn’t discussed nearly enough: a racial friction on the left. Oh, brother. You think that anything more than a nominal degree of “irritation” was unacceptable? Tell you what I think: anything less than telling them to get the hell off the stage was unacceptable. Further, though I wasn’t there and don’t know for certain, I strongly doubt that a lot of racist and sexist reactions came from Sanders supporters, given his decades-long, unyieldingly staunch support of equality for Black people and women. Bernie Sanders does not exactly draw the White Citizen’s Council or He-man Woman Haters Club crowd.
There were sweeping condemnations of the Black Lives Matter movement itself, a sense that benevolence had been rebuffed, that allies had been alienated. “Benevolence had been rebuffed”? You have to be kidding. The #blacklivesmatter intruders deserved everything they got and a ton more.
Here’s the news, Mr. Blow: being Black and angry is not a free pass to behave anarchically and force yourself down everyone else’s throats.
Why don’t you give us an idea of what you think would happen if two White activists showed up at a Black politician’s speech – even if they were 100% sympathetic to that politician’s views – and attempted to shut him/her up, take over the microphone, and make their own statement. Tell us honestly what you think the crowd would be saying and doing, then lecture us about “rebuff” and “alienated”.
One other thing, and it is a very important one: in several parts of your column, you associate #blacklivesmatter with Dr. Martin Luther King. To claim there is an association between the #blacklivesmatter movement and Martin Luther King is an insult to his memory.
Ok, there it is. Who is making more sense?
You decide.
