A recent fad among the social justice warriors is to accuse anyone who disagrees with their demands of having led a privileged life where because of their skin color, gender, or financial status they were allowed access to education or opportunities the poor African-Americans/Latinos/LGBTQ minorities and women weren’t. This, much like the critical race theory, started as a social justice academic theory widely embraced by those seeking something to hang all the social failures on.
An interesting aspect of the recent “hate crime” scandal in Chicago is how little we hear of the privileges afforded a connected black actor. Here we have an individual with connections back to the former Senator from Illinois and President. An actor who claimed he was a victim of a hate crime in that den of MAGA politics – Chicago. When the police investigated – their findings suggested he was the principal organizer of this farce. He was dutifully charged, arrested and posted a bond to ensure his return to court.
We will never know beyond a reasonable doubt if he was guilty or was truly a victim because while this was playing out in the public arena his political connections were working behind the curtain to have the charges dismissed. The fact all of the behind the scene players shared a party allegiance makes this scenario all the more credible to the average outside observer. The telling thing in this negotiation was the charges went away, but he lost his bond money. If, in the opinion of the prosecutor, the charges were found to be unsupported by the facts why did she keep the bond money and suggest it would go into the coffers of Chicago? It is almost as if she concluded the actor should pay a small price for wasting the time of the Chicago Police Department.
This is just the simplest of scandals but it reflects clearly why the average middle-class citizen is losing faith in the judicial system because of the obvious double standards of accountability. When the ideal of equal justice under the law no longer exists, can our government long continue?
Don’t get me wrong, I think privilege exists. It has always existed but as the term is used in today’s society it has been bastardized to such a point the average woke SJW who uses it as a club really doesn’t have a clue as to where and how actual privilege is determined and applied.
For example, isn’t it the privilege of wealth and connection that afforded those involved in the most recent academic admission scandal to gain access for their children to the colleges of their choice? The irony is so many of those taking advantage of their privilege were more than happy to tell the rest how we must think and behave to be socially acceptable.
1 comment:
Bias has been around since the dawn of mankind (oops - I guess I should say humankind). Even in the Bible, the Acts of the Apostles tells us that the early Christian Church, just after Jesus left Earth for Heaven, had issues with "privilege": "...as the number of disciples grew, the ones who spoke Greek complained that their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food, as compared with the widows of those who spoke Hebrew...." And these were folks who had walked with Jesus and HEARD HIM PREACH directly!!! If they couldn't get it straight, how are we supposed to? That's why I wish people would work more toward making politics local rather than national. Local politics are corrupt enough through the "good ol' boy" network. But what I learned when I took the Defense Systems Management College course at Fort Belvoir with lots of mid-level Civil Servants from the Pentagon, they are just a bigger version of "the network." I would hear conversations like, "Oh, yeah, I know that person (Deputy Undersecretary for the Army - Technology, or Director of XXX at the National Security Agency, etc. My kid was on his/her soccer team, or we go to the same church, or whatever." The difference is their influence friend-to-friend takes effect at a NATIONAL level vs. local. So many decisions were being made based on social dynamics and cult of personality rather than logic and reason, just like local decisions. But ordinary citizens have a much better chance of putting the brakes on a stupid local initiative over a stupid national initiative. The goal is not to stamp out and label bias, but to recognize that it exists and to strive through organizational structures, committee assignments, and such to eliminate bias as much as possible and promote governance by people based on their expertise and the content of their character, not their "label." That is what Dr. King wanted and would be pleased with.
Post a Comment