Sarah Palin Does It Again With Civil War Reference
This is classic Sarah Palin. I'd wager people would be surprised to learn that progressive Obama czarist Cass Suntein agrees with her on this growing flap because Palin had the audacity to invoke the Civil War in reference to Derrick Bell. I reached the same conclusion myself studying Bell. Cass Sunstein in The New Yorker, May 3 2004.
If Brown was destined to fail, as Bell believes, what would he have had the Supreme Court do in 1954? Surprisingly, he argues that the Court should have reaffirmed Plessy and permitted segregation to continue—but should have insisted that separate must be genuinely equal. Recognizing that “predictable outraged resistance could undermine and eventually negate even the most committed judicial enforcement efforts,” the Court should have required full enforcement of Plessy with a decree that would have equalized educational opportunity immediately, with federal district judges monitoring the process to insure compliance.
The Atlantic's David Graham should have done his homework before weighing in. He's shown reading in his icon. It must have been the comics. As Sunstein correctly pointed out, Bell's only path forward given his racialist view is "separate but equal." And where does that construct find it's origins? In the Civil War, of course. "Separate but Equal: Origins.
The American Civil War (1861–1865) policy yielded the cessation of legal slavery in the U.S., however not the intent of a different class of citizen. Before the end of the war, the Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act (Morrill Act of 1862) was passed to provide for federal funding of higher education by each state with the details left to the state legislatures. Following the war, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guaranteed equal protection under the law to all citizens, and Congress established the Freedmen's Bureau to assist the integration of former slaves into Southern society. After the end of Reconstruction in 1877, former slave-holding states enacted various laws to undermine the equal treatment of African Americans, although the 14th Amendment as well as federal Civil Rights laws enacted during reconstruction were meant to guarantee it. However Southern states contended that the requirement of equality could be met in a manner that kept the races separate.
Decades ago, I subscribed to The Atlantic for the quality of the writing. It may remain fair; however, it's a shame to see the thinking there devolve into such simple-mindedness. As I wrote at top, this is classic Sarah Palin. She's not only insightful and correct, she tosses the self-professed elites a bone they can't resist embarrassing themselves over by taking it up, however blind they may be.
Palin: The First Black President Wants to Revert to Pre-Civil War Society
In her view, the very act of acknowledging or talking about race's role in U.S. history makes one a racist.
Nonsense. What she's speaking to is the racial divisiveness of Derrick Bell's thinking and we're now seeing it in Obama, as well. Every honest person who by now knows anything much about Derrick Bell's Critical Race Theory knew Derrick Bell was the racist here. They didn't require Palin to say it, even if she had, which she didn't.
Derrick Bell in 1994: ‘Jewish Neoconservative Racists’
Bell, in the same interview: “Blacks will simply never gain full equality in this country.”
While focusing more on Bell's antisemitism, they somewhat address his racialism, too. Racialism is little more than a progressive intellectual's cover for their inherently racist views. Fine, they aren't racist -just as with Obama, they are racialist, divisive and, more importantly, wrong. Sound better now? As for Palin invoking the Civil War era, in context, it's basically the same conclusion I arrived at after looking into Derrick Bell myself over the past few weeks. When all Bell has left is separate but equal, as Cass Sunstein pointed out above, it's the Civil War era that foremost comes to mind.
Chalk another one up for Sarah Palin. What a rogue!