Presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton, while campaigning at a black church, committed an extremely serious microaggression against the black community.
Here’s what Clinton said, while talking about how her mother allegedly had to work as a housemaid (scoff!) after being “abandoned” while still an adolescent (scoff!). Clinton allegedly asked her mother how she ever kept moving forward (snark!):
Her answer [allegedly] was very simple.
Kindness along the way from someone who believed she mattered. All lives matter.
And thus did Hillary Clinton microaggress against the black people of America. Did you catch her crime? Did you notice the mortal sin that she committed?
Clinton dared to tell a group of black (alleged) Christians that all lives matter.
(Who actually believes that her mother truly did say, long ago, that all lives matter? By the way, are candidates supposed to campaign in churches? Does the IRS care to weigh in? Double standard? I digress …)
So serious was Clinton’s sin that some folks actually tweeted that by her microaggression, Clinton had lost their votes! [emphasis added to quotes]
The Rev. Renita Lamkin, who was in the audience at the event, told NPR that Mrs. Clinton’s comment did not go unnoticed.
“That blew a lot of support that she may have been able to engender here,” she said.
One must assume that Reverend Lamkin is a Christian, given that she’s pastor of an AME Church. Despite that the Reverend Lamkin is also a white woman, as well as an alleged Christian, she instructs Clinton on proper word usage, having herself apparently taken offense at the concept of all lives mattering:
Black lives matter. That’s what she needs to say.
Don’t you just love it when people deign to instruct other adults over whom they have not one jot of authority on what they need to do? Personally, as soon as I hear the phrase you need to, I tune out.
With regard to all lives mattering, what would Jesus say, I wonder? What would the newly-beloved-by-socialists Pope say? But, again, I digress …
In no way do I support Clinton here. She’s being hoist on her own petard and I’m luxuriating in a fluffy bed of schadenfreude, as a result. The nation’s truly first black First Lady (Hillary Clinton) is being taught that she shouldn’t forget that she’s also beneficiary of that other bugaboo, white privilege (as is the nation’s second black president, Barack Obama). You gotta love it!
Color Blindness: Statements that indicate that a White person does not want to or need to acknowledge race. “When I look at you, I don’t see color.” “There is only one race, the human race.” “America is a melting pot.” “I don’t believe in race.”
(Hilariously enough, Derald Wing Sue was an advisor to President Bill Clinton.)
Surely this is white Hillary Clinton’s crime: Color Blindness.
Now it’s a disqualifying trait for the presidency to believe in the ideal of a color-blind society!
One has to wonder what another minister, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., would have to say about Clinton’s transgression, given that he did say this:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Whether or not progressives and black activists like it, color blindness is the law of the land.
Another professor wrote,
The scholars promoting this concept claim that it is a microaggression even when someone says “I don’t see you as black,” or claims to be colorblind, or purports not to be a sexist, or in general doesn’t “acknowledge” one’s race membership or gender.
But let’s face it — it’s considered racist for whites to treat any trait as “black.” If we accept that, then we can’t turn around and say they’re racists to look at black people as just people. That particular aspect of the microaggression notion seems fixed so that whites can’t do anything right.
One can’t help sensing a notion that this would be perhaps “payback” for whites and the nasty society they stuck us with. But all it does is create endless conflict, under an idea that basically being white is, in itself, a microaggression.
That, however, is neither profound nor complex — it’s just bullying disguised as progressive thought. Let’s call it microaggression when people belittle us on the basis of stereotypes. Creating change requires at least making sense.
But it does make sense, when viewed as exactly what the professor deduced: It’s “payback for whites” and “bullying disguised as progressive thought.”
You might call it a systematic macroaggression against all “white” people. In fact, isn’t calling everybody else a “person of color” a microaggression against “white” people?
Payback and bullying (revenge) are exactly why concepts such as white privilege and microaggression exist in the first place.
Hatred and racism against “white” people. Shaming and stereotyping all “whites” as responsible for and to blame for events their ancestors may or may not have had any hand in, while at the same time giving a pass to “persons of color” whose ancestors may indeed be guilty of those same events.