Poor NY Times, lynching is complicated

Stephen Carter has an article today in the New York Times:

“Indeed, the truly intriguing aspect is not what the attorney general had to say about race, but rather what he had to say about the way in which we discuss it. Our national conversation on race, said Mr. Holder, ‘is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own narrow self-interest.'”

“There is, plainly, something to this. When we talk about race we do tend to talk in simplistic categories.”

1. Does it get anymore simplistic than trading a lynching for a stop to ads and then ducking out of discussion? That’s what makes it complicated, right Carter?
2. Or is racism complicated because it involves the exercise of power by government officials including Senators?
3. Or is it complicated because it involves taking away scholarships?

Carter goes on about the protests against a certain cartoon by the NAACP. But how does the NAACP benefit in its “own self-interest” by protesting? Did the NAACP obtain a job from that like Obama and Holder? Did they plan it over long years?

Slavery was complicated, politically. And yet, it wasn’t.

Don’t worry: we get it. It’s “complicated” when it benefits the major parties. Conversely it’s “extremist self-interest” when volunteers raise it against the major parties.

Note:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/opinion/25carter.html?_r=1

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: