A helpful reminder why some whites voted for the Great Fat Orange Klansman

Zerlina Maxwell And 'The End Of White Politics'

She spends a lot of time on MSNBC insisting on the unique importance of the black vote, pushing for a fairly radical racial leftist agenda and defending vandalism of any white monument, so far as I can tell.

Might not be entirely right, so, cum grano salis.

Still, she (probably) and many others (certainly) on that network and at CNN and BBC News, many of them white, validate the warnings of what now seems an age ago, when Trump and others first claimed it's not really just about public honors for the Confederacy.

It's about a veto on any public honors exercised by agents of the racial left for whom not many whites would be allowed monuments in the United States of America, or perhaps in any white settler-state in the world.

If even Lincoln doesn't pass your test . . . .

Her anticipation of the eventual demographic eclipse of whites and her insistence that the Democrats behave as though it's already happened and magically made blacks the US majority, or at least the majority of the Democratic Party (it absolutely won't do the former and probably won't do the latter), will seem excessive to many and scary to some.

[The online CIA Factbook says the US is still over 70 % white and about 13 % black and above 15% all others. Hispanic is not a race but an ethnicity, and Hispanics may be of any race and are so counted in the US census.]

[Political sites or organizations of any persuasion seem all to insist it's really about non-Hispanic whites rather than whites in general. Because why? Justices Sotomayor and the late Cardozo not white enough? Does Juan Carlos de Borbón seem a little too dark?]

She wants the Democrats to behave like a nonwhite - a racial left party is what she really means - party, at least as regards its agenda, and to more or less ignore the (non-racial left) whites who presumably make up an actual majority of its voters, members, and officials by a pretty long way.

She says this is what they need to do to win elections; trying to bring back white Obama voters who went with Trump last time - who make no sense at all to me - won't work.

Of course she says that.

Given the outsize roll she wants for the racial left and their ludicrous, anti-white agenda, what else would she say?

MSNBC and CNN and Donald Trump are all just fine with that.

Miller, Bannon, and even David Duke will send her fan mail and flowers.

Not for the last time, there is no code

An appeal to or claim to defend states rights is not code for racism or defense of racism or white supremacy.

But historically and so far as I know nobody has ever appealed to or defended states rights except to defend secession and slavery, or state-mandated segregation, or state Jim Crow laws, or the right of employers or public accommodations to discriminate on the basis of race.

"States rights" isn't code for those things.

Those things have been and largely still are the only reason for defending states rights.

The Klansman in Bozo emerges with a shout out

If this was intentional - and I think it was - it was not a "dog whistle", much less was it "code".

It was more of a blatant shout out to the alt.right.

The kind of folks we saw and heard at Charlottesville.

Trump thanked 'great people' shown in Twitter video in which a man chants 'white power'

Check out the video.

No mistaking the guy in the cart shouting "White power!" repeatedly, fist raised.

This is a chant or slogan of nobody but committed and very self-aware white racists.

The tweet was deleted after the news had insured everyone was aware of it.

President Donald Trump on Sunday morning widely shared a video he said is from the Villages, a retirement community in Florida, in which a man driving a golf cart with Trump campaign posters is seen chanting "white power."

The President retweeted the video that showed the community's Trump supporters and anti-Trump protesters arguing with one another. 

The President thanked the "great people" shown in the video.

"Thank you to the great people of The Villages. The Radical Left Do Nothing Democrats will Fall in the Fall. Corrupt Joe is shot. See you soon!!" he wrote in the tweet. 

Roughly three hours later, the tweet no longer appeared in Trump's timeline.

Ask yourself this.

If the Duce had seen and heard the fellow in the golf cart covered with Trump signs shouting "White power!" and pumping his fist at a live rally, what would have been his reaction?

Would he have blanched in horror?

Would he instantly have publicly rejected the man and his support and the support of anybody like him as somebody like McCain or Romney would have done?

Pshaw.

That is not what he did when he was told David Duke supported him in 2016, when he and Pence both very clearly did not want to reject the support of the racist right.

If this had happened at a McCain or Romney support rally and they said or did nothing that would prove they were not aware.

But the Duce?

The Great Fat Orange Klansman in the White House?

I think not only was he aware, that was the point of re-tweeting the video.

Even if he expected or planned its removal, from the beginning.

There is no pleasing everyone. Certainly not history's losers.

Native Americans to protest against Trump visit to Mount Rushmore

Oh, gee, we'd better dynamite the whole thing, then.

They will push until they hear falling glass, you know.

Tired of it, yet?

Should Washington and Jefferson monuments come down?

She's right.

Sarah Anthony, I mean.

At the very least open carry and most types of firearms ought to be forbidden at the capitol.

Armed black citizens escort Michigan lawmaker to capitol after volatile rightwing protest

Even so, what the gun-nut white Militia types did the other day was inherently threatening and that was the point, the demonstrators meant to be threatening.

So why not a charge of making a terroristic threat or something related, anyway, as some have asked?

And there is such a crime in Michigan as brandishing a firearm, though it's a considerably less serious charge than it seems is needed here.

That open carry even of long guns in the capitol is legal is not a valid objection to either charge, though the contrary notion seems to have been cited by many to justify the politically - and perhaps even physically - cowardly lack of pursuit of prosecution.

Like the neo-nazis and Klansmen in Charlottesville, Trump called these "good people" and urged the governor to "make a deal" with them.

But Trump often gives cover to right wing terrorism, as do his friends at Fox News.

Truth: that it is legal to carry a gun does not make it legal to commit a crime with it.

Armed demonstrations involving blatant intimidation could be punished under existing law, probably everywhere in America.

And ought to be everywhere.

The good people stayed home

'Swastikas and nooses': governor slams 'racism' of Michigan lockdown protest

Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan issued a rebuke of the armed protesters who gathered inside the state capitol last week in defiance of statewide lockdown orders, saying the demonstrators embodied some of the “worst racism” of the nation’s history.

“Some of the outrageousness of what happened at our capitol depicted some of the worst racism and awful parts of our history in this country,” Whitmer said during a Sunday interview on CNN’s State of the Union.

Last week Donald Trump had said of the protesters: “These are very good people.”

. . . .

[Whitmer said,] “There were swastikas and Confederate flags and nooses and people with assault rifles. That’s a small group of people when you think that this is a state of almost 10 million people, the vast majority of whom are doing the right thing.”

. . . .

Displaying the Confederate flag, or other symbols of the slave-owning south during the American civil war, is usually seen as racist.

There is not the least doubt that many, even most, of the folks nationwide who support at least partial rollback right away are "good people", or anyway no worse than the general run.

But they aren't showing up to demonstrate under the Confederate flag, side by side with nazis, racist militia, and the worst of the right wing loonies.

And that's because good people don't show up to march under the Confederate flag, or side by side with nazis, or side by side with racist militia, or with the worst of the right wing loonies.

Let alone under the Confederate flag with all of them.

"Mississippi Burning"

Watched it for the nth time on Amazon streaming video last night.

The same battle being fought then against white supremacist, nationalist, racist terrorists who enjoyed widespread community support and political cover is still with us, today.

Even down to the denunciations of the press for printing lies, distortions, and "fake news" about the poor maligned South, Southerners, and especially organized racist killers and their official enablers and collaborators.

All of those almost-Nazi bastards ("almost" because the Klan and its sympathizers were never officially sympathetic, much less than committed, to the fascist theory of government or the tenet of government the Germans called the Führerprinzip) were soi-disant defenders of traditional white Christian Protestant Anglo-Saxon civilization against nonwhites, papists, and Jews, especially alarmed and angered by the prospect of mongrelization and pollution of the white race through miscegenation.

The Duce notably defended the white anti-American racists at Charlottesville as "good people".

So you say you like small government and states' rights better?

We get that that's code.

It means - among other things and leaving aside such stuff as white nationalism, white supremacy, white Nativism, fascism, authoritarianism, and populism - that you like crime better than government.

You think that the cure is worse than the disease.

Worse for you, because you're a white male, a plute, a 1 percenter, or a crook.

And if you talk like that you're probably all four.

"Most Virginians as far as land mass . . ."????

Jerry Falwell Jr. Whines To Fox News That Only Landowners Should Run Virginia

The story doesn't support that headline, but never mind.

It's interesting all the same.

“The Washington D.C. suburbs now control every Virginia statewide election and that’s the result of the radical government in Richmond. And they're passing all kinds of bills that are just contrary to what the majority of Virginians—not the majority of Virginians, but most Virginians as far as land mass, support,” Fallwell Jr. said on Fox News.

. . . .

What is really happening is that Falwell Jr. and others are trying to secede from Virginia to join West Virginia. 

The issue being that northern Virginia has been becoming larger, increasingly more racially diverse, and younger. 

As a result, the more conservative politics of rural communities have begun to feel sad face emoji.

Lying is his job. He works at Fox, you know.

Tucker Carlson Falsely Calls White Supremacy a ‘Hoax’

Numerous critics and media outlets rebuked the conservative Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson Wednesday after he said white supremacy in America was “not a real problem” on his talk show the night before.

His remarks on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” came days after a mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart left 22 people dead and dozens injured. 

Investigators said the shooter was motivated by a hatred of Hispanics and pointed to a white supremacist manifesto worrying about “a Hispanic invasion.”

Mr. Carlson also likened white supremacy to “the Russia hoax,” calling it a “conspiracy theory” used by Democrats to divide the country.

"Other kinds of supremacy"? What?

Trump Echoes Infamous ‘Both Sides’ Quote By Comparing White Supremacy To Antifa

Despite the huge body count in the name of white supremacy, the president suggested “other kinds of supremacy” are an equal threat.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday deflected a question about the rise of white supremacist violence in the U.S., suggesting without prompt that “antifa” and “other kinds of supremacy” are hate groups worthy of equal concern.

Trump, speaking to reporters on the south lawn of the White House, was asked what he was going to do about America’s ongoing white supremacy crisis. 

He replied that he was against “any group of hate,” under which label he included both white supremacists and anti-fascists.

Antifa are people who, at worst, use bad means to oppose bad people.

"White supremacists" - by which label people refer to dangerous white racists in general - are bad people who use bad means to achieve bad ends.

Not really the same, is it?

And the latter far outnumber the former.

Surely that can't be right. Or maybe it is.

Tucker Carlson Calls White Supremacy a 'Hoax'

OK, let's play along and allow that "white supremacist" means "dangerous white racist".

TC is using the expression pretty much that way, pretty much the way everybody seems to be using it.

So what the heck.

TC, himself infamous for broadcasting the white nationalist "invasion", "replacement", "white genocide" propaganda, says this.

The combined membership of every white supremacist organization in this country would be able to fit inside a college football stadium.”

That might be right.

But that's actually quite a lot of dangerous white racists.

We're talking tens of thousands, right?

Of the sort of folks who could be expected not only to rejoice in but also even to personally participate in violent racist attacks.

He added, “I mean, seriously, this is a country where the average person is getting poorer, where the suicide rate is spiking—‘white supremacy, that’s the problem’—this is a hoax. 

"Just like the Russia hoax, it’s a conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power. That’s exactly what’s going on.”

"The Russia hoax"?

On Fox, Carlson continued: “White supremacy—you know, I’ve lived here 50 years, I’ve never met anybody—not one person—who ascribes to white supremacy. I don’t know a single person who thinks that’s a good idea. 

So he doesn't know what "ascribe" means and confuses it with "subscribe", in one of its meanings.

Just another C student with a big mouth.

"I don’t—I mean, they are making this up, and it’s a talking point which they are using to help them in this election cycle, obviously, because Russia died.”

Even supposing he's here dropped into using "white supremacy" to mean, uh, white supremacy and not just "dangerous white racism", did he not at the time offer comment on the infamous Charlottesville demonstrations?

Has he somehow remained all this time completely and totally ignorant of who those people were and what they were on about?

A whole panoply of dangerous white racists representing dangerous white racist organizations and urging dangerous white racist agendas, at least some of whom - think of the Klansmen among them, for example - actually do espouse, advocate, and seek to implement white supremacist policies, laws, and so on, in this country.

Think Jim Crow.

Think enslavement of blacks in the US.

Some of those folks at Charlottesville would have told you straight out those were good things.

Did he truly and honestly miss all that?

No, he's just lying.

Does anybody believe him?

Are even his regular viewers too stupid to see it?

Or do they just like it when he lies like this?

A reminder why we miss him

He may easily have been the most decent human being to occupy the White House during my entire lifetime.

Truman was president when I was born.

Barack Obama's twitter statement about the El Paso and Dayton shootings

As for that use of "white supremacy" I deplore it, but never mind.

The statement reminds us why so many of us felt proud to be able to vote for him, send him to the White House, and keep him there as long as constitutionally possible.

While he did not mention the Duce by name it's pretty clear he had him in mind.

Anyway, Brian Kilmeade thought so, and so Bozo thought so.

And he couldn't resist a public reply that basically just cribbed Kilmeade's reply.

Trump responds to Obama over statement on mass shootings

Hm.

Why might Bozo deserve blame that O did not and does not?

What a puzzle, eh?

Could it be . . . . ?

While Bozo has so far resisted gun control measures to help stem the tide, O supported such efforts.

While Bozo and his campaign have furiously demonized immigrants from our south and actually adopted as their own the replacement/invasion propaganda of white nationalist terrorists, O and his side refused inflammatory rhetoric about anyone, and were actually blamed and regularly denounced by T and by Republicans for refusing such rhetoric, particularly about Jihaders.

Could that be . . . . ?

Update.

Is the Duce the most indecent person to sit in the White House in my lifetime?

I think so.

And remember that period includes Nixon.

A good editorial in the NYT

We Have a White Nationalist Terrorist Problem

If any white person in any degree concerned by the sorpasso is a white nationalist then there are a lot more white nationalists than realize it, and by far not every white nationalist is a terrorist or criminal of any sort, no more than every pro-lifer is a terrorist.

Come to that, there are a whole lot of white nationalists, in that case, who don't have and wouldn't support a white nationalist agenda of any kind.

And nobody has any business suppressing free speech.

Once and for all (I hope, but know better. So, no, I guess I despair), white supremacy is political rule of nonwhites by whites involving special and repressive measures such as exclusion from office, exclusion from the franchise, or other such measures.

The cultural or political predominance associated with being a demographic majority is not "supremacy", even if the majority is white, though some people seem to use the expression as though it covered that case - obviously a tendentious usage.

[Update. O and others persist in using "white supremacy" as a labor for the mere fact that whites are a demographic majority in the US, and he writes of the concern of white nationalists at losing this status as a fear of loss of white supremacy.

But if majority status is "white supremacy" in the US - and Canada, and many states in Latin America, and all states in Europe - then majority status in every state in sub-Saharan Africa is black supremacy, and majority status in China is Han supremacy, and elsewhere we have Korean supremacy, Japanese supremacy, and so on.

White supremacy bad, other supremacy good?

Tendentious usage is such a bore.]

White supremacy, as a fact or a goal, may, but need not, be associated with or motivated by ideas of racial superiority or other manifestations or varieties of racism.

On the other hand, if we learned that an organization of ethnic Estonians sought to keep ethnic Estonians a demographic majority in Estonia we would have no qualms about calling it a nationalist group or about calling their goal a nationalist one.

So we should have no hesitation applying the label "white nationalist" to any group or person seeking to preserve the majority status of American whites, or to delay its loss, on account of that goal.

Update, 1221 EDT 08062019.

Fears or concerns associated with the sorpasso, by the way, ought not to drive policy or in any way determine an agenda.

Not in the least.

In my opinion, anyway.

So if merely being concerned makes you a white nationalist, your white nationalism ought to be politically irrelevant and empty.

And perhaps it is worth pointing out that though whites are going to cease to be America's majority that does not mean any other race or ethnic group is going to become America's majority.

The nonwhites of America who are going to be the majority are not one race or ethnic group but many, quite distinct from one another.

And American whites will continue to be the largest single racial or ethnic group in America for a long time to come.

The situation of whites in America is not going to parallel the situation of whites in South Africa, or of Chinese in Malaysia, the Ainu or Koreans of Japan, or the Uyghur in China.

In a very real and important sense, white Americans are not going to be suddenly living in a country where somebody else is in the majority.

What's in a name?

Why are people referring to these white Nativist killers generically, or individually, as white supremacists?

What's the foundation for that?

What we know is that they resent, fear, and want to stop nonwhite immigration in order to at least delay the approaching demographic sorpasso that will happen when the nonwhites of America outnumber the whites.

That makes them white Nativists.

That does not make them white supremacists.

But maybe there is material in those manifestoes that shows they are that, too.

What, I wonder.

Sen. Brian Schatz: "We have a white supremacist problem"

Santorum: "The person in El Paso is a white supremacist."

Everybody seems to be calling these guys that, today.

Maybe this absurdly broad usage at the ADL helps explain it.

White supremacy is a term used to characterize various belief systems central to which are one or more of the following key tenets: 1) whites should have dominance over people of other backgrounds, especially where they may co- exist; 2) whites should live by themselves in a whites-only society; 3) white people have their own "culture" that is superior to other cultures; 4) white people are genetically superior to other people.

In truth I would have thought belief in point 1 is, all by itself, the sum and substance of white supremacism, taking "other backgrounds" to (somehow) mean "other races".

And is that actually what these guys think or want?

Wanting white Americans to be spared slipping into minority status in the US is not and does not entail that, nor any others of the 4 points the ADL identified (though I suppose it's a safe bet these guys accept 3 and 4 in that ADL list, and maybe even 2 as some sort of ideal case).

And it's certainly not what the exterminationist fans of The Turner Diaries want.

They don't want to rule people of other races. They want to kill all of them.

Anyway, the ADL takes a considerably broader view than seems to be common in online dictionaries.

Here's one that's typical.

Definition of white supremacist : a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.

But that's to my mind too restrictive, since anyone who believed the second but not the first would not count as a white supremacist, on this definition; that seems wrong to me.

Update.

It seems right to call them white nationalists, too.

We would not hesitate, I think, to call a group of ethnic Estonians out to ensure ethnic Estonians remain a majority in Estonia rather than being eclipsed by Russian immigrants a group of Estonian nationalists.

The analogy is close enough.

How will that play in the general?

Also-ran Beto sounding like the racial radicals among the Dems, not just the candidates but the party as a whole.

O'Rourke tells immigrants 'this country was founded on white supremacy'

Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas) this week told a group of immigrants and refugees living in Nashville, Tenn., that the U.S. was founded on the concepts of white supremacy and slavery.

. . . .

"I know this from my home state, Texas, places that formed the Confederacy, that this country was founded on white supremacy," he said, according to the Tennessean.

. . . .

He made the remarks in response to a question about how he would tackle white supremacy if elected president.

To which the best answer would have been that white supremacy in America is a long gone thing of the past, and what people are really complaining of who say otherwise is the fact that the majority of Americans are white.

And to that complaint the best answer, if not "pardon us for living", would have been "fuck you."

I suppose we could quibble a bit about the nuance of "founded on", but those were certainly features of the country at its founding.

So, no Pinocchios for that one.

But this is just inflammatory bullshit.

Or maybe a concession to the lying racism of the person who asked the question.

"And every single institution and structure that we have in this country still reflects the legacy of slavery and segregation and Jim Crow and suppression, even in our democracy."

Does his saying that, and to a batch of new immigrants and refugees, no less, show he hates our country?

Actually, I'm not sure what the hell it shows, though in his case I rather doubt it's that.

A lot of this year's Democrats talk like that, however, and maybe that is what it shows when they talk like that.

And, anyway, whose votes are they fishing for, with that kind of talk?

Is this that Tucker Carlson apparently said quite unfair?

All of it, or just parts of it?

TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): 

The Democratic candidates for president are on the road this week telling voters that the United States is an awful country. 

"America's institutions are built on white supremacy," squeaked Beto O'Rourke at an event yesterday. 

Of all the lies these people tell, and there are many, this is the most absurd.
...

Ilhan Omar has an awful lot to be grateful for, but she isn't grateful, not at all. 

After everything America has done for Omar and for her family, she hates this country more than ever.

In a recent piece in The Washington Post, the reporter put it this way, quote, 

"In Omar's version, America isn't the bighearted country that saved her from a brutal war and a bleak refugee camp. 

"It wasn't a meritocracy that helped her attend college or vaulted her into congress. 

"Instead, it was the country that had failed to live up to its founding ideals, a place that has disappointed her and so many immigrants, refugees, and minorities like her," end quote. 

If anything, that's an understatement.

Omar isn't disappointed in America, she's enraged by it. 

Virtually every public statement she makes accuses Americans of bigotry and racism. 

This is an immoral country, she says. 

She has undisguised contempt for the United States and for its people.

. . . .

Ilhan Omar is living proof that the way we practice immigration has become dangerous to this country. 

A system designed to strengthen America is instead undermining it. 

Some of the very people we try hardest to help have come to hate us passionately.

A pleasant surprise from an opinionator at the Times

There are Depression Era murals on the walls of courthouses and other public buildings all over America, many of them done by reds of various sorts or others more than a little friendly toward them and their views.

Yesterday, a piece was published that was, on the whole, sympathetic to a move by San Francisco to forever destroy such murals on the walls of a high school.

San Francisco School Will Cover Controversial George Washington Murals

Some of the scenes depict blacks and Indians as victims of the young American republic, and implicate Washington, himself.

So you might have guessed this was a decision made by white Republicans or other contemporary whites more than a little tired of politically weaponized history aimed specifically at them.

Nope.

It was actually snowflakes - grandchildren of Zinn, as we might say - and their elder protectors who saw in these murals exactly the opposite of what the artist intended and what decades of viewers have seen.

What was painted and understood for so long as a condemnation was and is perceived, so they say, by the snowflake generation as a glorification of white supremacy, racism, slavery, and even genocide.

And so, of course, they have to be destroyed.

San Francisco Will Spend $600,000 to Erase History

By now stories of progressive Puritanism (or perhaps the better word is Philistinism) are so commonplace — snowflakes seek safe space! — that it can feel tedious to track the details of the latest outrage. 

But this case is so absurd that it’s worth reviewing the specifics.

Victor Arnautoff, the Russian immigrant who made the paintings in question, was perhaps the most important muralist in the Bay Area during the Depression. 

Thanks to President Franklin Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration, he had the opportunity to make some enduring public artworks. 

Among them is “City Life” in Coit Tower, in which the artist painted himself standing in front of a newspaper rack conspicuously missing the mainstream San Francisco Chronicle and packed with publications like The Daily Worker.

Arnautoff, who had assisted Diego Rivera in Mexico, was a committed Communist. “‘Art for art’s sake’ or art as perfume have never appealed to me,” he said in 1935. 

“The artist is a critic of society.”

This is why his freshly banned work, “Life of Washington,” does not show the clichéd image of our first president kneeling in prayer at Valley Forge. 

Instead, the 13-panel, 1,600-square-foot mural, which was painted in 1936 in the just-built George Washington High School, depicts his slaves picking cotton in the fields of Mount Vernon and a group of colonizers walking past the corpse of a Native American.

“At the time, high school history classes typically ignored the incongruity that Washington and others among the nation’s founders subscribed to the declaration that ‘all men are created equal’ and yet owned other human beings as chattel,” Robert W. Cherny writes in “Victor Arnautoff and the Politics of Art.”

In other words, Arnautoff’s purpose was to unsettle the viewer, to provoke young people into looking at American history from a different, darker perspective. 

Over the past months, art historians, New Deal scholars and even a group called the Congress of Russian Americans have tried to make exactly that point.

“This is a radical and critical work of art,” the school’s alumni association argued. 

“There are many New Deal murals depicting the founding of our country; very few even acknowledge slavery or the Native genocide.

Of course, there wasn't a native genocide, though there was widespread ethnic cleansing, some of it egregiously and undeniably motivated by unabashed racism, such as the Cherokee Removal.

"The Arnautoff murals should be preserved for their artistic, historical and educational value. 

"Whitewashing them will simply result in another ‘whitewash’ of the full truth about American history.”

Such appeals to reason and history failed to sway the school board. 

On Tuesday, it dismissed the option to pull an Ashcroft and simply cover the murals, instead voting unanimously to paint them over.

One of the commissioners, Faauuga Moliga, said before the vote on Tuesday that his chief concern was that “kids are mentally and emotionally feeling safe at their schools.” 

Thus he wanted “the murals to be painted down.” 

Mark Sanchez, the school board’s vice president, later told me that simply concealing the murals wasn’t an option because it would “allow for the possibility of them being uncovered in the future.” 

Destroying them was worth it regardless of the cost, he argued at the hearing, saying, “This is reparations.”

These and other explanations from the board’s members reflected the logic of the Reflection and Action Working Group, a committee of activists, students, artists and others put together last year by the district. 

Arnautoff’s work, the group concluded in February, “glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, Manifest Destiny, white supremacy, oppression, etc.” 

The art does not reflect “social justice,” the group said, and it “is not student-centered if it’s focused on the legacy of artists, rather than the experience of the students.”

. . . .

“In my entire life, no one has ever, ever accused me of being a ‘white supremacist,’” Lope Yap Jr., a filmmaker and the vice president of the alumni association, told me. 

But if you buy into the expansive notion of “white supremacy” put forward by Alison Collins, one of the board commissioners, that is exactly what Mr. Yap, who is Filipino, is. 

“One of the earmarks of white supremacy culture is valuing (white) property over (Black & Brown) ppl,” Ms. Collins recently wrote on Twitter. 

“I think about this when I read comments from folks arguing to ‘protect’ the ‘Life of Washington’ murals.”

Mr. Sanchez, the board vice president, told me: 

“A grave mistake was made 80 years ago to paint a mural at a school without Native American or African-American input. 

"For impressionable young people who attend school to have any representation that diminishes people, specifically students from communities that have already been diminished, it’s an aggressive thing. 

"It’s hurtful and I don’t think our students need to bear that burden.”

Why Americans should celebrate diversity

You would think it would be a fact we would simply accept as an integral aspect of America from the beginning.

A country founded by white colonists in a land already inhabited by red men to which they imported black slaves could hardly be anything but diverse.

But popular awareness of demographic change that will lead in a few decades to non-Hispanic whites dropping from being the American majority to being the American plurality has ruled that out.

Nowadays we are forced to choose between two reactions to that demographic change.

An express and explicit embrace of diversity, the outright celebration of diversity, is now the only alternative to intolerance and reciprocal hatred among our diverse ethnicities, religious groups and gender identities as well as persons of diverse sexes and sexual orientations.

And in American politics the practical alternative is the white Nativism and white nationalism, the deliberate and open pursuit of white supremacy and the exclusive dominance of Christianity in our culture and the law, that now so strikingly mark the Republican Party.

While the embrace of diversity has become a leading feature of the Democratic Party.

So far, the greatest president of the 21st Century has been a black man born in Hawaii, Barack Hussein Obama.

And so far, the worst president of the 21st Century has been Donald Trump, a white Nativist Republican from New York.

Update.

Of course, the Children of Zinn who insist upon the weaponized history and white-bashing ideology of hate that is indigenism are also to be found among the Democrats, and very influential among them, and their embrace of diversity does not at all extend to whites.

Recall the conflicting racial attitudes reflected in representations of LBJ's role, and the role of white politicians generally, in the civil rights struggle, on the one hand grossly misrepresented in the film Selma, and on the other much more accurately stated in Hillary's defense of that president against that film's lies.

It is Hillary and other Democrats like her whose commitment to diversity is the more genuinely inclusive.

George Will cherishes democracy

On Sunday morning on her show, Joy asked George Will why the Republicans in the house have not kicked Steve King off his committees, or censured him, or denied him his seat, or thrown him out of their caucus.

His reply?

The voters of his district have elected King several times by large margins, and their democratic will cannot lightly be thwarted.

And what about censure or denying him his senior positions in various committees?

None of that is actually important enough to worry about, he said.

So kicking him out or shaving in power in the party in response to his emergence as a Republican George Wallace would be lightly thwarting the will of the people, apparently, according to George Will.

So Will is now defending the Republican Party for allowing its white racist supporters an increasingly potent presence in the party leadership and increasing influence on its agenda.

I guess Will is now OK with the possibility of David Duke being elected to the house as a Republican?

House GOP leader: 'Action will be taken' after King's white supremacy comment

The top Republican in the House vowed Sunday that "action will be taken" after Iowa GOP Sen. Steve King's recent comment about white supremacy and white nationalism.

"That language has no place in America," California GOP Rep. Kevin McCarthy said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

He continued, "That is not the America I know, and it is most definitely not the party of Lincoln. 

"I have a scheduled meeting with him on Monday, and I will tell you this: I've watched on the other side that they do not take action when their members say something like this."

When did a Democrat say something like this?

Sixty or seventy years ago in the days of the Dixiecrats?

"Action will be taken. I'm having a serious conversation with Congressman Steve King on his future and role in this Republican Party."

King has faced criticism after he told The New York Times that he thought it was wrong white nationalism and white supremacy were considered offensive.

"White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization -- how did that language become offensive?" King said.

Update.

The GOP leaders have shorn him of his committee assignments.

His words reveal him as a white Nativist anxious to preserve demographic majority status for American eurowhites.

They also show he is a rather Buchananist opposite of the Children of Zinn very close to dominant among the Democrats.