Katie Cristal, writing for the Cavalier Daily, on “Accepting a multiracial society“:
Why is it that conservative figures like Newt Gingrich, who long received 0 percent approval ratings on civil rights issues, began suddenly rallying behind the cause of multiculturalism in the 1990s? Rep. Thomas Sawyer, D-Ohio, oversaw the House Subcommittee on Census, Statistics and Postal Personnel during its 1993 “Review of Federal Measurements of Race & Ethnicity” hearings. He explained the effects of racial categorization in his statement that “congressional districts rise and fall with the shifting demographics of the country and program funding of all sorts is a function of how many people are placed in each category — the numbers drive the dollars.”
This is the usual propaganda. Notice that she speaks of “right-wing” multiracial organizations but does not name them. She repeats the myth that many so-called scholars have promoted about Newt Gingrich being some kind of leader of the movement. None of these so-called journalist will contact Charles Byrd or James Landrith, for example.
Charles, please correct me if I got any of the following wrong:
Newt Gingrich got involved with the multiracial movement (barely) in 1997, because his constituent Susan Graham contacted him. His involvement with the movement was only to attempt to help (on behalf of his constituent) Rep. Tom Petri’s legislation to add a multiracial category (with racial subidentifiers) to the Census. This would only have created richer, more complex data. Contrary to the popular opinion of the campus multiracial groups (whose members were in grade school when all this was going on) Gingrich (through Petri’s bill) supported more data, not less.
I’m not sure Susan even knew he was Speaker when she contacted him.
Gingrich had absolutely nothing to do with the issue until then. He’s had nothing to do with the issue since the Petri bill died in Subcommittee.
To my knowledge, Antonin Scalia has never been involved with the movement.
Assertions to the contrary perplex me.
Fri 9/24/2004 8:52 PM
Petri did offer to appease his critics by amending his legislation by placing a multiracial header over the check-all-that-apply laundry list. He did so on “This Week with David Brinkley.” Unfortunately, AMEA felt that sucking up to the NAACP and the “traditional civil rights organizations” — to let the brothas and sistas know that they was still down with da movement — was more important than striving for what they seemed to have wanted all along. Personally, I don’t blame Susan Graham for contacting Gingrich, who, in fact, did represent her in the House.
What gets me is something I wrote about in “Campus Collectivism, the
‘Privilege’ Notion & Default Political Persuasions” (http://interracialvoice.com/editor33.html). Where is it written that any
degree of African ancestry compels you to hold a liberal/socialist ideology from birth? Essentially, contemporarily, BLACK = LIBERAL = LEFTIST = SOCIALIST. In essence, these are political identifiers, and I also wrote about that in “Charles Drew, Jean Toomer, Julian Bond and “‘Choices'” (http://interracialvoice.com/editor17.html). That said, if I’m not drawn to socialist ideology, why should I feign affection for it?
Somewhat similarly, Ranier Spencer (John’s favorite) used to wail and moan that those mixies wanting to identify as something other than black secretly hated black folk. Of course, that’s bullcrap, but EVEN IF IT WAS 100% TRUE, how would or should that adversely affect any individual black person? In fact, that person should not be disturbed at all and should not feel pressed to start laying guilt trips at the feet of people who identify as mixed. In reality, we all have the choice of being offended or not by what others say and think. It really is our choice.
Something else crossed my mind today. When MAVIN and Hapa Forum issued that press release a couple of weeks ago condemning Ward Connerly for seeking a multiracial category within the U. of Cal. system, did they mention the health reasons? There for awhile you would have thought that mixed race people were dropping like flies, dying in the street due to a lack of a bone marrow transplant. Of course, that what an essentially phony issue designed to keep the Census 2000 multiracial category alive when the opposition seemed to be crushing any hope of any change. Why didn’t AMEA endorse Petri’s proposed legislation? Because they felt they couldn’t dare be seen as embracing anything that wasn’t proffered by someone positioned decidedly to the left of the political spectrum.
Lastly, John, and I’m sure you know this as you are not an ignorant man. Race conscious remedies do absolutely nothing to move us beyond race consciousness. In fact, it should now be crystal clear to any thinking person that the so-called civil rights establishment is perfectly content to wallow in the mire of race consciousness forever and a day. They are not interested in moving beyond it. Hell, it pays the bills!
Sat 9/25/2004 1:00 PM
Charles writes: “Somewhat similarly, Ranier Spencer (John’s favorite) used to wail and moan that those mixies wanting to identify as something other than black secretly hated black folk. Of course, that’s bullcrap, but EVEN IF IT WAS 100% TRUE, how would or should that adversely affect any individual black person?”
I would add this point: If not identifying as “black” means that you “hate”
then, then obviously “blacks” must be very comfortable with the “hatred” of Latinos, Arabs and others. They ain’t wasting any sleep over it.
Sat 9/25/2004 7:40 PM