Post-Activist Egalitarianism

As I discussed in an earlier post the race industry has an interest in keeping racism alive. It has played a positive part in defeating racism, I do not seek to deny credit to the campaigners and activists who worked hard for decades to first bring racial equality into the political mainstream and then broaden support to the level that it is in effect uncontested. In America this included quite a recent violent and dangerous struggle for the vote. However activism is now as often a barrier to racial integration as a help.

However via Instapundit I came across an interesting angle on the Pennsylvania story of camp children being denied use of a swimming pool, allegedly because they were black. Andrew Breitbart of The Washington Times points out that before the usual suspects (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson) could put their boots on to travel down and join the media circus decent local people had already addressed the issue.

Members of the club involved in the controversy and its neighbours were quick to condemn the incident. Local people, ashamed of the attitude of the club offered alternative activities for the children, lessons with professional chefs, with film-makers and other artists; a local college offered its swimming pool free of charge. In other words people who saw injustice reacted to help in their own way, to offer what they were best able to give.

So if the full story is heard the initial negative impression of Pennsylvania (sorry Pennsylvania; we have heard of the City of Brotherly Love, but to most Europeans the state is assumed to be homogenous) is turned round entirely. The reactions of normal people has been as good as could be hoped, and the people of Philly shown to be in general just and kind. All without the help of the race industry.

Breitbart says racism’s cure is found in the private sector, and I think he has a very good point; “Whenever legitimate acts of bigotry occur, they should be exposed to the light of day. The media and the legal system - fuelled by public outrage - can do the rest”.

One great advantage in race being addressed by people with no interest in racial tension is that a lot of the reaction is in racially-neutral terms; “I don't know how you can do that to little kids” is considering these as disappointed children, not as black children.

Activists have done their job, making racism into an issue that the media will report and that causes public outrage. Now that success should be left to bear its fruit of a fairer society, without being influenced by the agenda of militant activists whose interest is served not by integration but by fuelling racial tensions.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that a search on the website of the Washington Times’s more famous rival, the Washington Post does not reveal any of the positive side of this story. Likewise for that matter the New York Times. Do these left-wing newspapers not think that ordinary people responding to the racism they did report is a story? Does the Philadelphia Enquirer have any political affiliation, as it also seems to miss the great kindness of its own constituents?