After a week of mounting criticism and harsh rhetoric directed at Riley Matheson and Youth for Western Civilization, one major inconsistency needs acknowledging. Lost in the false impression of YWC constructed by liberals seeking nothing but an outlet for protest is the fact that their mission statement has nothing to do with race.
I concede that YWC advocates for a limit on immigration that some may interpret to be racist (no one at the Carolina Review, however). I concede that they advocate for the cultural superiority of the United States, which again some may interpret as racist. I also must concede that there are questions about some of the figures involved with the organization at the national level and their involvement with racist organizations.
But those are merely questions, and they do not have anything to do with the organizational mission Riley Matheson is espousing at UNC. The Carolina Review does not support the policy aims of YWC, as you can see in a previous blog post by Zach Dexter. But it laments the presumption of racism and white supremacy regarding its mission that culminated Tuesday night with protesters denying Riley the ability to express exactly what his organization seeks.
As YWC’s website describes and as Riley as expressed to me, the group’s aims are race-neutral. The limit on immigration for which they advocate applies to all countries and is targeted at no particular country or race, and the Carolina Review apologizes for any implication of otherwise in previous posts. They make a cultural claim of the superiority of Western culture as practiced in America, and they make a sociological claim that countries which assimilate their immigrants into their successful and superior culture benefit from that assimilation.
Most importantly, while it is true that YWC’s precise definition of Western civilization has not been made entirely clear, it is fair to presume that by the term they do not mean a return to white dominance in any form, much less slavery, as was implied at Tuesday’s event. A student of the BSM held a sign that read “Western civilization = white dominance.” While I appreciate your more appropriate and sophisticated form of protest, that sign also commits the same sin as the others, a presumption of racism and desire to deny the enlightenment progress that has been a part of Western civilization through many centuries. Western Civilization is about ideas and progress, not about the sins of its past.
I hope to soon hear Riley more extensively define what he means by Western Civilization. I’m sure there are more than enough liberals waiting out there to decry this mission as intolerant, or at least misguided. The Carolina Review will still disagree with his goals regarding immigration and national identity. But I think we will all realize that the accusations of racism on his part are totally unfounded, and in fact were built up to provide radical protesters a straw man to obnoxiously rip apart.
There are ways to debate immigration without resorting to ugliness. It’s unfortunate that the anti-immigration crowd consistently elevates bigots and yes, racists to leadership positions. It may be true that YWC has no racial agenda, and it’s possible that the UNC chapter of YWC is unaware of its own organizational proximity to and similar use of language to white supremacist organizations, but their choice of speakers clearly seems geared to provoke rather than to stimulate debate. Tancredo and Goode have both made careers out of arousing racial antagonism in the name of ending illegal immigration. If members of YWC are really interested in a debate, they should consider inviting a speaker who is capable of addressing the issues without the unpleasant baggage of bigotry.
Personally, I believe the illegal immigration debate is much like the debate on the “war on drugs,” and that in both cases, increasingly draconian responses to the perceived problems have only resulted in suffering, hardship, a booming prison population and militarized law enforcement.
Hey *: The only people who have made the debate “ugly” are the people who are completely unwilling to hear what Tancredo and Goode have to say. Let me ask you this: What have either Goode or Tancredo said racist, SPECIFICALLY? What? Cat got your tongue?
And, please, can you tell me what “connections” YWC has to white supremacist organizations? Again, BE SPECIFIC. I am highly disgusted with vague accusations that merely serve to tarnish a person’s or organization’s reputation, but not actually add any incontrovertible proof.
True, Epstein is a contributer to VDARE.com. WHOAAAA. Guess what else–Michelle Malkin is also a contributor to VDARE.com. Is she now a racist? Well, considering your unintelligence, clear liberal bias, and inability to recognize a poorly written and highly inaccurate blog on the internet (as the Carolina Review has basically admitted), I wouldn’t be surprised if you’d say that she is a racist. Such is our wonderful University. If UNC doesn’t have a cultural revolution of its own, I can tell you right now that I won’t be sending my future kids here just so that they can become brainwashed leftists, who are taught to have knee-jerk reactions to what they deem “racist.” Indeed, some of the writers for the Carolina Review (such as Christopher Jones) are essentially neo-leftists, and are completely unaware of the history of the American conservative movement and where organizations such as VDARE.com fit into the picture. If Jones were a good conservative, he would follow the 11th commandment, even if it doesn’t fully apply in this circumstance. YWC’s goals are essentially conservative, even if they don’t call themselves “conservative.”
“I am highly disgusted with vague accusations that merely serve to tarnish a person’s or organization’s reputation, but not actually add any incontrovertible proof.”
There is an incongruence between this statement and your post if you care to notice.
Somehow you managed to accuse us of vague, knee-jerk reactions, and then offer a significantly larger one of your own. Carolina Review writers neo-leftists? Seriously? We are an ISI publication, and one of the older ones at that. Whatever organization of which you are about, I suggest you recognize an organization that’s not out to undermine the conservative movement. We are the voice of that movement at UNC, and we have been for some time. Read our back issues; they are on the website.
If you read the words of the post, it was meant both to declare firmly that the Carolina Review is not accusing YWC of racism and to apologize for previous errors and implications. It also decries the same sort of empty accusatory labeling of which you speak and of which YWC has been the victim. It would be in both of our best interests for you to recognize that apology, but also to understand that the Carolina Review will disagree with YWC and raise questions where they are worth raising. If you actually read our posts, you will find below one by Zach Dexter which clearly explains that the goals of YWC are essentially not conservative.
It’s also worth noting that I have been a functioning active member of ISI, a true leader of the conservative movement, for three years without ever needing to mention VDARE.com. Too imply that the group has any meaningful role in the movement is ridiculous, and quite frankly, I would call VDARE an embarrassment both in its web presentation and in its content. See documentation in a previous post.
EC, I’d like to know where you are getting the idea that we have some sort of obligation to support YWC, or at least refrain from criticizing it, just because YWC is another “conservative” organization. Especially considering that YWC and its leadership explicitly reject the label of “conservative” in favor of “right-wing.”
http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_041909.htm
“I would call VDARE an embarrassment both in its web presentation and in its content. See documentation in a previous post.”–bwaynand
Really?
Let’s face it. You guys screwed YWC. Yeah, yeah–you apologized. But what’s written on the internet can never really be revoked.
The fact that VDARE was even brought up is a shame. It was essentially used as an underhanded technique to “prove” that YWC was racist. Nice going–you guys are much more reminiscent of a liberal smear paper than a professional conservative publication. Unless you are going to admit that you guys were wrong in the past for aligning yourselves in any way, shape or form with Michelle Malkin (http://www.unc.edu/cr/articles/2008/10/michelleObama.html), then you need to lay off of VDARE. Ask Malkin whether or not she believes that VDARE is an “embarrassment” to the conservative movement.
By the way, Chris, I realize that YWC is not a self-identifying conservative group, which is why I said: “YWC’s goals are essentially conservative, even if they don’t call themselves “conservative.” ” Learn how to read. But the reality is this: They SHOULD have a lot in common with Carolina Review, considering their stated goals and recent action here on UNC’s campus and their actions on many other campi across the country. And if you disagree with me, that’s fine, but I’ll be forced to consider you neo-leftists, regardless of what you may have printed in the past. “It’s not what you did for me yesterday, it’s what you’re doing for me today.”
Even if YWC has a lot of views in common with the Carolina Review (they don’t), how does it then follow that Carolina Review has an obligation to support everything that they do?
No, Christopher J, EC’s not asking the Carolina Review to support EVERYTHING that YWC does. Duh.
What he’s trying to get across is that in a climate as rapcaciously liberal as UNC is currently in,
it’s most certainly not a good thing to demonize a fellow conservative organization (I
know, I know, “YWC ISN’T A CONSERVATIVE ORGANIZATION! THEY SAID IT, THEY SAID THAT!”),
especially demonizing it as falsely and as inaccurately as YOU DID. [Seriously man, why
didn’t you get your facts straight BEFORE YOU WROTE THE DAMN BLOG?] That just gives the
rest of the f***ing campus fuel to burn. Have you not heard of the 11th commandment?
That’s what EC mentioned. It’s from Ronald Reagan–you know, the guy the Carolina Review
probably fanatically idolizes after Buckley? EC didn’t say that you had to support
everything that YWC stands for. But you’re frankly not very smart if you think that the
two don’t have a lot in common. You can at least admit that one thing they have in common
is that they’re both “conservative” (more or less, for you nitpickers) organizations that
have to fight constantly their opinions through on a very liberal campus overall. Can you
concede that, or are you guys really that hopeless?
AND WHEN ARE YOU GUYS GONNA ADDRESS THE VERY VALID MICHELLE MALKIN QUESTION POSED TO YOU? Gonna let that slip conveniently by? Dishonest sneaks…
I would like to note for the record that we are considered a conservative organization by the Leadership Institute, which is dedicated to funding different kinds of campus conservative groups throughout the country. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if the Carolina Review was also connected to the Leadership Institute.
Indeed, a student organization cannot get funding from the Leadership Institute if it is not deemed “conservative” by the Leadership Institute itself. Kevin DeAnna, the founder of YWC, is currently employed by the Leadership Institute, by which fact it is clear that he is recognized as a “conservative” by a mainstream conservative institute.
Therefore, we DO have much in common with any number of mainstream organizations. (Notice I’m being as unspecific as possible.) At YWC, we recognize that being “conservative” is meaningless because “conservative” is a relative term. Environmentalists are conservative in the sense that they want to conserve the natural environment, yet are not considered conservative by Rush Limbaugh. At YWC, we don’t like the idea of conserving the current dominant culture that is ultimately not going to allow the narrative of our Western culture/heritage to continue for much longer.
Now, at the same time, the Carolina Review has made it clear what they mean by “conservative,” and, for that, I am appreciative. And since I know what the Carolina Review means by “conservative,” I can confidently state that YWC DOES have much in common with the Carolina Review, the pro-life group, the College Republicans, et al. [NOTE: I didn’t say that we have everything in common.].
Riley, thanks for your response, I think we are in agreement. I did not mean to question your conservative credentials as a whole, I just referenced Zach’s post regarding a couple of issues on which we differ. It was actually EC who curiously questioned our conservative credentials without supplying a basis; apparently we have to agree with everything YWC does or he is “forced” to consider us leftists. I appreciate you not setting such a misguided standard.
“But it laments the presumption of racism and white supremacy regarding its mission that culminated Tuesday night with protesters denying Riley the ability to express exactly what his organization seeks.”
Isn’t that the presumption of your editor, Chris Jones?
He has made about 5-6 “corrections” already as he is repeatedly taken to the woodshed on his lies. He tried to fact check his story AFTER he had published his lies. Jones still has not provided one example of how the YWC is racist. Nor has he given one example of how VDARE.com is racist. Yet he still persists in his ignorance by calling YWC and VDARE.com racists.
“There is an incongruence between this statement and your post if you care to notice.” How so? The accusation that YWC is connected to racists because Epstein is connected to YWC and to VDARE is a vague accusation. You didn’t quote anything from Epstein (except what you got from the SPLC), and you haven’t shown how Epstein’s association with VDARE (which is no different from Michelle Malkin’s association with VDARE) is relevant to YWC’s being racist. Epstein is connected with many different mainstream conservative organizations–are they all racist because of their associations with Epstein?
I’ll tell you what: forget about answering the questions I just posed in the latter paragraph. The point I’m trying to make is this: YOU SHOULDN’T HAVE EVEN BROUGHT UP VDARE IN DISCUSSING YWC. Because you did, thousands of liberals all around this campus (and beyond) now falsely believe that YWC has connections to racists and white supremacists. No matter what you say now, that’s the bottom line. If you meant what you just said to Riley Matheson on this comment page, you should practically bow down at his feet and beg for forgiveness.
Why can’t you acknowledge the fact that you shouldn’t have brought VDARE up? Why can’t you acknowledge that it was a damaging and ultimately disastrous step on your part? I know you’ve apologized for basically everything else. But I’ve not seen an apology for bringing up VDARE. Any reasonable, true conservative would agree with me.
And, personally, I do think that you guys are leftists since you apparently have no qualms about openly attacking VDARE, which is ultimately a direct attack on Peter Brimelow, Marcus Epstein, Patrick Buchanan and Michelle Malkin, who all are good conservatives, regardless of what the grand Carolina Review thinks, “the voice of [the conservative] movement at UNC.”
Just curious, are you guys ever going to address the question that I asked about Michelle Malkin?
Is anyone really disputing Vdare’s status as a purveyor of racism? They’ve published hundreds of articles that approvingly cite Charles Murray’s and Richard Herrnstein’s widely discredited book of scientific racism, “The Bell Curve.” Take a look at their site, their writers are overwhelmingly white, clearly obsessed with race, and some identify themselves as white nationalists. To me, those are pretty strong indicators.
1. The Bell Curve is neither racist nor discredited. It simply reports the results of thousands of IQ studies from around the world.
2. NAACP members are overwhelmingly black, clearly obsessed with race and some identify themselves as black nationalists (in the 1990s, the NAACP made a “sacred covenant” with Louis Farrakhan). Would you call them racist?
1. See Steven Jay Gould, “The Mismeasure of Man”. The Bell Curve is just the latest iteration of 19th century racists who sought to prove intelligence differences between races by measuring brain cavity size.
2. Yes, but you bringing up this point is a tu quoque fallacy.
Well, to bluntly address your final point: yes, black nationalists are racist. The Carolina Review has criticized our own Black Student Movement extensively for their nationalist and race-based identity.
To clear things up, I am the editor of this publication. My post was intended to be a clarification for what I view to be a gross misrepresentation of YWC’s goals at UNC, including an apology for any misinterpretations that resulted from Chris’ or any other writer’s coverage of the group on this blog.
However, ultimately, the post did merely raise valid questions. I stand by the questions raised regarding VDARE, since they do present content on their blog which degrades blacks, and contrary to the accusation above, such documentation was provided. I stand by raising questions involving Marcus’ involvement in YWC simply because there are multiple contradictory sources out there speaking to this issue. And lastly, to address the Michelle Malkin question; there is a difference between being a syndicated columnist and a primary contributor. Moreover, if I am made aware that Malkin openly endorses VDARE, than I am prepared to object to her endorsement likewise.
I would again like to thank Riley for allowing the Review and YWC to exist together without a ridiculous expectation that we agree on everything. EC, the standard by which you are judging us to be leftist is an intellectual joke; the incongruence to which I referred was your extensive and vague accusation that the Carolina Review is comprised of neo-leftists without citing any record of us expressing such opinions. We made some errors, and then we retracted them. But we did cite references to racially degrading material posted on VDARE when making that particular accusation.
National Review publishes John Derbyshire who also publicly defends the existence of racial differences in IQ. Well, there goes National Review.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzEyZjFmOWQ4YzlmZDRhMTdlMWYyNWJlNjEwM2Q5NDI=
Commentary, a national conservative magazine, ran an article by Charles Murray exploring the generally high IQ of Jews. Key quote — “It is no longer seriously disputed that intelligence in Homo sapiens is substantially heritable.” There goes anyone who ever wrote for that or reads it.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/jewish-genius-10855?page=all
Ann Coulter talks about racial differences in IQ in her book “Godless.” She also defends the Council of Conservative Citizens. And she was attacked by the SPLC the arbiter of all truth. http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/02/13/columnist-ann-coulter-defends-white-supremacist-group/
There goes Young America’s Foundation, which hosts her speeches. Sure hope no one at the Carolina Review ever went to one of their conferences or used one of their programs or bought one of Coulter’s books. Would be “racist” you see.
The Carolina Review is connected to ISI. ISI hosts its annual “Dinner for Western Civilization.” I’ll wait for the Review to demand answers from ISI as to what Western Civilization really means and prove they are not fascists.
Now that we’ve exposed the entire conservative movement, including the Carolina Review, as “linked” to evil racists with forbidden ideas, I’m sure the leftists will give us credit and abandon their double standard on identity politics any day now.
@Joseph Burke:
The problem with the idea that some race has a higher or lower IQ than another race is that this is unprovable and likely quite false. People who extrapolate IQ test results to an entire color of people miss the scientific point, and are ignorant of 1) what the tests actually measure and 2) the fact that confounding variables may exist.
I quote Sharon Begley of Newsweek:
Thus, VDARE is a fairly embarrassing blog from a logical and scientific standpoint. Its over-generalized racial claims are false, unsupported by the evidence and literature, and help fuel the flames of hate groups by simplifying a very complex issue down to skin color.
In short: you CANNOT prove that there are IQ differences as a result of skin color. Let us look to Merriam Webster’s for the definition of racism:
Vdare publishes many writers, some of whom share this view, some of whom do not. You have chosen to dismiss the entire source as evil because of some contributions. You then take this tainted source and extend it to everyone who has written for it, and then everyone who knows the writers.
There are two questions. First, does this apply to National Review, Commentary, Young America’s Foundation, and every other publication or group that has published or supported writers that take this view? If so, is there anything in the conservative movement that’s not racist and evil?
Second, regardless of whether it’s “racist,” shouldn’t there at least be scientific research on these topics? You’ve quoted a Newsweek reporter quoting one scientist. I’ll quote a fairly liberal writer from a left wing source that explores these issues, albeit with the usual politically correct disclaimers.
http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/
The evil racist source National Review approvingly quoted the evil racist Charles Murray who gave a speech at the evil American Enterprise Institute’s Irving Kristol lecture. The key quote is, “Within a decade, no one will try to defend the equality premise. All sorts of groups will be known to differ in qualities that affect what professions they choose, how much money they make, and how they live their lives in all sorts of ways. Gender differences will be first, because the growth in knowledge about the ways that men and women are different is growing by far the most rapidly. I’m betting that the Harvard faculty of the year 2020 will look back on the Larry Summers affair in the same way that they think about the Scopes trial–the enlightened versus the benighted–and will have achieved complete amnesia about their own formerly benighted opinions.”
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.29531/pub_detail.asp
If anything, YWC is far too timid by refusing to address topics that mainstream sources are already covering. Not that their caution got them anything.
JB: I’m sure Charles Murray thought the same thing in the mid 90s, when more people actually took him seriously and a Democratic president was gutting welfare.
Let’s not kid ourselves about what Murray is asserting though: black people are inherently more stupid than white people, and this fact should inform policy decisions. Anti-poverty and early childhood education programs like Head Start are a waste of money, because black people are going to be stupid forever.
It is a waste of time to debate nonsense like this.
“And lastly, to address the Michelle Malkin question; there is a difference between being a syndicated columnist and a primary contributor. Moreover, if I am made aware that Malkin openly endorses VDARE, than [sic] I am prepared to object to her endorsement likewise.”
Okay, Bryan. Time to put your money where your mouth is:
http://michellemalkin.com/2004/09/26/steve-sailer-vindicated/
I’ll quote the relevant parts for you:
“In another VDARE blog entry, MY FRIEND PETER BRIMELOW observes that some people apparently think linking to VDARE is tantamount to a hate crime.” (emphasis mine)
“Now, AS HE POINTS OUT ON VDARE’S NEW BLOG, a demographer at the Brookings Institution agrees with him.” (emphasis mine)
Now, Bryan, don’t cop out and merely “object to her endorsement likewise”–object to HER because, by your standards, she is openly and directly connected to a “white nationalist” website, which effectively makes her a white nationalist.
And as Joseph Burke has extensively shown on this forum, the ENTIRE conservative movement is, in one way or another, connected to “racist” dialogue. So, here are your choices: (1) You can admit that you are not really conservative; or (2) you, the grand Carolina Review, can claim the entire conservative movement is racist, except for the Carolina Review (even though, as Burke points out, you are up to your knees in the same “embarrassment” already), and therefore, by your own standards of association, sever ties with the mainstream conservative movement (which would also mean, as Burke again points out, that you need to conduct an “expose” on ISI). I’ll wait anxiously as you scramble for excuses.
Honestly, I have completely lost interest in this entire affair. You guys can feel free to continue your anger over a misinterpretation of my words.
We have acknowledged and apologized for our mistakes. You have persisted in accusing me of equating Marcus with white supremacy, which I did not, I just conceded the existence of questions. You have also persisted in deciding that we are therefore not conservatives, which is completely devoid of logical thought. Let’s move on.
In case you guys forgot to notice, we have defended YWC against the garbage that took place and is still taking place on this campus. Let’s hope our campus grew up in time for tomorrow evening; a new distribution of posters suggests otherwise.
“Honestly, I have completely lost interest in this entire affair.”
What, now that all your arguments have been systematically demolished and you’ve been proven connected to “racists,” too?
“You guys can feel free to continue your anger over a misinterpretation of my words.”
Oh, so now we’re misinterpreting your words? Don’t think so, Bryan. I quoted you as saying that you’d ?object to her endorsement likewise? (which is a cop out, but hey–it’d be pretty hard for you to agree to condemn someone outright like Michelle Malkin.
“You have persisted in accusing me of equating Marcus with white supremacy, which I did not, I just conceded the existence of questions.”
Have you ever heard of the saying: “There’s no such thing as an accused racist”? Think about what that means, Bryan. It means that anyone who is ACCUSED of racism in this society of ours is ever after suspected of racism, regardless of how unfounded the accusation was. Basically, the adjective “accused” or “suspected” inevitably drops off of the word “racist” in people’s minds, and the victim is just thought of as a “racist.” Everything the victim does or says is ever after interpreted in the light of his being racist. Such is our culture, and no one who hasn’t lived under a rock for the past 20-30 years would deny it.
In your case, you raised “questions,” which were stupid and unfair. You have maintained that YWC is questionable or even suspect because of their “connections” with “white supremacist” websites. And you, and especially Chris Jones, have done so at your own peril. Now I’m simply asking you to be honest intellectually. Apologize to VDARE, Epstein, Brimelow, Buchanan and any other conservative that you have offended in the past few days, or condemn Michelle Malkin and John Derbyshire, and any other conservative who has participated in this “racist” dialogue.
“You have also persisted in deciding that we are therefore not conservatives, which is completely devoid of logical thought.”
I’m sorry, Bryan, but when you have such a strong reaction against VDARE, calling it “racist,” “white supremacist” and an “embarrassment,” and try your best to distance yourself from it, and it turns out that basically the ENTIRE conservative movement is involved in the same stuff that VDARE is involved in, excuse me if I call into question your conservative roots, your conservative gut or your familiarity with and knowledge of the conservative movement in America. By the way, you are doing exactly what I predicted you’d do: copping out.
And I don’t care if you’re now defending YWC–sort of. It’s more like you’re condemning the protesters. Wow–just like everyone else. (Justin Crowder is the only one really defending YWC.) Your defense sounds more like: “Well, national YWC (to which UNC’s chapter is closely and intimately linked) is not overtly racist, but there are questions about it being so because of certain suspect characters involved with national YWC. And no matter what YWC is, they have the right to free speech.” Okay. That pretty much sums up your defense. Gee, how comforting.
The Carolina Review is a joke, and if it really is the conservative movement at UNC, then UNC’s screwed. Maybe YWC will be able step up to the plate and take over.
EC, my post says that I think YWC is does not have a racist mission. That will be the extent of my defense because I do not agree with that mission.
Apologies already have been extended.
And thankfully, the rest of the conservative movement does not engage in the obsession over racial identity that puts VDARE in the same category as UNC’s Black Student Movement, just on opposite ends of the spectrum. During the course of my Western education I learned that there was a dignity possessed by every human soul that transcends any nonsensical biology about race. I do not deny the realities that VDARE discusses, but to attribute them to biological racial factors is counter to this principle, and I sincerely hope that it never becomes a central part of conservatism.
It’s silly to equate the BSM with Vdare. In the USA, black nationalism is a reaction to the white supremacy that was pervasive in US culture and politics throughout most of the 20th century. Equating them as two sides of the same coin is only possible if you ignore history.
And, yes, Michelle Malkin is a bigot.
Did someone ever tell you that two wrongs don’t make a right?
To state the argument more clearly: the civil rights injustices of this country’s history were wrong because they based one’s status and treatment by the government on race; according to that system one’s identity was defined by their race and society was separated accordingly. The modern civil rights movement began as an effort to refuse such identification by race, yet the BSM works against that effort.
It is funny that a “conservative” publication seems to think that The Bell Curve written by one of the most respected conservative scholars was discredited because Stephen J. Gould said so.
Gould was a self proclaimed Marxist who explicitly said that his views on evolution were informed by Marx.
You have a flawed understanding of the civil rights movement. It did not begin as an effort to refuse identification by race; it began as a reaction to the violence of white supremacy and its supporters at all levels of society, not just in the government. It later grew to encompass more: “The black revolution is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes. It is forcing America to face all its interrelated flaws—racism, poverty, militarism, and materialism. It is exposing evils that are rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society … and suggests that radical reconstruction of society is the real issue to be faced.” (Martin Luther King Jr.) The idea of color blindness is a convenient abstraction often used by the right uses to elide the facts of the civil rights struggle and to denigrate minorities who seek to maintain a distinct identity in an environment where white privilege is pervasive.