NPR Watch (9/25/15)


I was listening to National Public Radio’s local affiliate — WNPR — when on came a re-run of something called “The Colin McEnroe Show.” It’s a local show with a local, lefty (of course!) host, and this dude talks about things generally pertinent to the day’s news. His focus is usually cultural/political.

This time one of his topics concerned the white male poet who used an Asian female-sounding pseudonym to publish a poem, Why? No one would publish his work as a white male poet dude, but as an Asian woman, they would! He had submitted his poem to 40 different publishers as a white male dude, and been rejected each time. However, as soon as he submitted the poem as an Asian woman, Pow! Published.

See if you can guess what perspective went totally unexplored by the host and his guests on the  Colin McEnroe show.

Needless to say, McEnroe had on his show a whole bunch of people who (1) ripped the white male poet dude up one side and down the other, and (2) exulted in the fact that apparently there were a whole bunch of internet trolls who also ripped the white male poet dude up one side and down the other. Why, they said, it was appropriation, cultural appropriation of the worst kind! They were upset that the guy got his poem published, not to make some larger point, but — horrors! — just to get his poem published!

This last, by the way — getting poems published — is something that poets do try to do from time to time.

One of McEnroe’s guests was, indeed, an Asian woman. She was, of course, particularly offended. “As an Asian woman,” she began (as leftists always do), and went off on some rant that headed almost directly into the “he’s a racist” (of course!) place.

In there, though, was a moment when the Asian woman (I think it was she) confessed that she was vaguely disturbed that there were actual indications that what the poet dude had said — “I couldn’t get my work published as a white dude, but I could as an Asian woman” (roughly) — was true!

They went back and forth for a bit, and all were unanimous: the white male poet dude, who used an Asian woman-type pseudonym was a jerk, and probably a racist jerk.

So, what perspective did they miss? Why the easiest one, of course! How do you explain, then, that it’s good when a minority anything — poet, writer, singer, mortgage applicant, artist, sculptor, snorg-peddler — passes himself off as a white man to get a job, get published, buy a house, win a contract, sell a product or service?

Here’s how: You see, he was defeating the evil system at its own game! He was striking a blow against discrimination! Universally on the left that person is hailed as a great and courageous hero, who had taken on an evil system and beaten it using its own rules against it.

But, let some white guy do exactly the same thing — the only difference being the color of his skin — let him beat what seems to be an obviously racist system in the poetry publishing world, and what a scoundrel he is! And a racist scoundrel at that!

There was no discussion in the show of (1) whether the poem was worth publishing. The Asian lady seemed to indicate that it might have been, by confessing that there is racial discrimination — apparently against white male poets — in the publishing world. (2) There was no discussion of whether that was okay! Presumably because that would put such an obvious contradiction out there that even a leftist could see it! And wouldn’t be able to defend it, even with the fog-speak at which the left is so adept.

Brief aside: Did you ever notice that the only ones who actually have to police every word that comes out of their mouths are on the left? It’s not “abortion” it’s “choice.” It’s not “racial discrimination,” it’s “Affirmative Action.” It’s not even a “fetus,” it’s “fetal tissue.” Or “uterine contents.” The list of euphemisms the left is forced to use to disguise the reality of their beliefs is dauntingly long.

Here are the only possible conclusions one can draw from listening to the left blather on and on, in their small and large whack-a-doodle echo chambers in the media:

  • Racism is good after all! As long as it’s the right kind of racism.
  • Beating a racist system is okay only when some people do it. When others do it — like white male poet dudes — it’s racist and wrong.
  • Racial discrimination is good! If it’s the right kind of racial discrimination.
  • Beating the system by playing it off against itself is okay only if some people do it. Not, though, when white male poets do it.
  • The left is perfectly willing (1) to concede that there is racial discrimination in the publishing world, and (2) to leave that racial discrimination in place.
  • This is exactly the same thinking as that which the left condemn so operatically all the time. It’s thinking straight out of the Jim Crow South in the 1950’s and ’60’s, and out of the eugenicist 1920’s.(1)
  • Taken to its logical conclusion, this is apartheid. The system in South Africa where a minority overtly discriminated against the majority. We used to take a dim view of apartheid.

Never, ever, ever, in a million years, expect the left to say something commonsensical, or fair, or intelligent, or just, or correct like: “Hey, if the poem is good enough to be published, it shouldn’t matter who wrote it, it should be published! Period!”

Why? Because that would produce disparities in who publishes what and when. And that notion would be extensible to other disciplines as well:

  • Hey, if he’s fit for the job, he should be hired no matter his race! (Bye bye, Affirmative Action — aka: racial discrimination in employment and university admissions)
  • Hey, if his music is good, it should be played no matter his race!
  • Hey, if his book is good, it should be read, no matter his race! (a bunch of dead, white, male masters’ masterpieces would enjoy a renaissance in academia, and a bunch of contemporary literary schlocks and frauds would disappear.)

That’s why the left is quite happy with some kinds of racial discrimination.

The left will never be satisfied until all of America is one big Procrustean Bed.(2)

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) – The only distinction between the various periods is in how leftist racism manifests itself. In the 1920’s the eugenicists were quite open and honest in their belief that blacks were an inferior race, and that for the good of all society, blacks should be bred or sterilized out of existence. In the 1960’s, leftists were still openly racist, and instituted laws and controls — called “Jim Crow” and “segregation” — so that whites didn’t have to associate with blacks at all. While in contemporary America, the left still believes that blacks are inferior, but that belief has gone underground, and now shows itself in government programs that all but shout out the left’s belief that black Americans simply can’t make it, in the now overwhelmingly non-racist America, without massive assistance from white Americans.

(2) – Procrustean bedor procrustean bed

1. a plan or scheme to produce uniformity or conformity by arbitrary or violent methods.

Origin of Procrustean bed: after Procrustes, the bandit from Greek mythology who stretched or amputated the limbs of travelers to make them conform to the length of his bed.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2015.

Advertisements

One thought on “NPR Watch (9/25/15)

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s