Yesterday the wacko diversity fanatics at Amerika's newspaper of record devoted 20% of their front page - the most valuable publishing real estate on planet earth - to a photo of an obscure opera singer from South Carolina who just passed away, one Camilla Williams:
Now, we know it's black History Month and all, and therefore that the freakazoids of 42nd Street will be rolling out the heavy artillery to lob mortars of guilt into our collective consciences, but seriously, for this little charade, they could have at least chosen an African American who actually looked more african than american :
|RIP: Camilla Williams: America's |
First "Black" Opera "Star"
C'mon you Times nutters: J-Lo is darker!
It's a revealing obituary however, chock-full of the usual racial grievance rhetoric, and sadly devoid of musical references. It's almost like the diversity fanatics at the New York Times know how stupid they appear by trying so hard to be polite and politically safe. One could almost excuse them, were it not for the fact that by mangling history with their wishful thinking they are contributing to the delinquency of a society.
Further afro-uplift can be found in yesterday's The Arts section, where the Times devotes considerable real estate to an artist whose work on first glance one assumes is that of a child or perhaps a brain-injury patient:
"A Visual Equivalent Of The Blues, In Warm Shades"
For the four-eyed morality athletes at the NYT, nothing can be more sacred than blacks "painting" about blacks and the "black experience," no matter how awful their art is to look at.
I feel like a dick having to write this, because deep down I feel profoundly sorry for someone whose art is so bad that it makes me cringe. It makes me feel even more sorry for that artist, though, that the desire among paternalistic do-gooder DWLs to uplift certain pet minorities is so strong, that these disingenuous white liberals would willingly lie to their subjects of uplift, and tell them that ja, your work is really "strong."
When in fact it is not.
When in fact it is not.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with a little kindness. But taking it to the point where entire Empires, whole Civilizations are destroyed, as the New York Times does, well, that's when it might be time for the pendulum to swing back in the other direction, away from kindness, equality and love, and towards firmness, realism and merit.
The New York Times: Ugly Is Beautiful and Wrong Is Right Since 1967.