The following is an excerpt from OpinionJournal.com’s “Best of the Web” written by the editor, James Taranto.
Bottom Story of the Day
“Billions Spent on Programs Without Knowing if They Work”–headline, Washington Examiner, Feb. 10
Beyond Black and White
“An African-American lawmaker in South Carolina said Tuesday that stricter illegal immigration laws would hurt the state because blacks and whites don’t work as hard as Hispanics,” the Associated Press reports from Columbia:
State Sen. Robert Ford made his remarks during a Senate committee debate over an Arizona-style immigration law, eliciting a smattering of nervous laughter in the chamber after he said “brothers” don’t work as hard as Mexicans. He continued that his “blue-eyed brothers” don’t either.
Once his ancestors were freed from slavery, he said, they didn’t want to do any more hard work, so they were replaced by Chinese and Japanese.
“We need these workers here. A lot of people aren’t going to do certain type of work in this country,” said Ford, D-Charleston. “The brothers are going to find ways to take a break. Ever since this country was built, we’ve had somebody do the work for us.”
He recalled to senators that four workers in the country illegally showed up on his lawn and finished mowing, edging and other work in 30 minutes that would take others much longer, and only wanted $10 for the job. He went on to say he recommended the workers to his neighbors, and one local lawn care businessman lost work–a story one senator remarked was hurting, not helping, his case.
Joel Sawyer, executive director of the state Republican Party, demanded that Ford apologize: “It’s abhorrent and incredibly offensive that any elected official would make comments this racist.” In response, Ford “said he’d apologize, but he doesn’t know what for,” then told the AP: “Black guys and white guys are going to get out there and do the hard work? No.”
Whatever one may think of the immigration question, there’s something wonderfully stereotype-shattering about a white Republican politician demanding that a black Democratic politician apologize for making “racist” remarks at the expense of both whites and blacks.
From TheHill.com, here’s another counterstereotypical complaint, this one from a member of the Congressional Black Caucus:
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) took to the House floor Tuesday night to criticize what she called a “demeaning” Pepsi ad that aired during the Super Bowl.
In the ad for Pepsi Max, a black woman sitting on a park bench gets angry with her husband after an attractive, white female jogger sits down next to the couple and smiles and waves at the man.
After the man smiles back, his girlfriend or wife gets angry and whips her Pepsi Max can at him. The man ducks, and the can hits the attractive jogger in the head. The ad is titled “Love hurts.”
Jackson Lee said it was ridiculous for the soft drink maker to air the advertisement during African-American history month.
“In this month of African-American history where we’re trying to celebrate what is good and great, it certainly seems ridiculous that Pepsi would utilize this kind of humor,” she said. “It was not humorous. It was demeaning. . . .”
We saw the ad and found it mildly shocking. We noticed the racial angle too, though our thought was that if it had been a white couple and a black woman getting hit, it would be a hate crime. The report adds that “Jackson Lee said she has a sense of humor and believes in the First Amendment.” That’s a relief.
A third surprising race-related story comes from Colorado, where the Denver Post is editorializing in favor of students’ wearing blackface at the University of Colorado. It seems the “diversity committee” of the Faculty Assembly had proposed a resolution “criticizing the use of blackface paint at sporting events and other locales.” But the Post explains that blackface at sporting events has nothing to do with race or minstrelsy:
CU’s colors are officially silver and gold, but sports fans can be forgiven for thinking that black is an official color as well. After all, it has dominated home football uniforms for years–as well as most CU sports apparel available to the public.
In other words, CU students who paint their faces black do so for the same reason students at other universities paint their faces purple or yellow or green–as a sign of school spirit.
The faculty’s diversity committee no doubt understands this, which is why its objection to the practice in a draft resolution is so bewildering. It’s as if they were determined to find fault with a practice everyone else understands is innocuous.
Of course, it’s not bewildering at all when you realize that when academic bureaucrats talk about “diversity,” what they mean is uniformity.
For more “Best of the Web” click here and look for the “Best of the Web Today” link in the middle column below “Today’s Columnists.”
