Ok, so to clarify, the civil rights act never happened, or at least we're supposed to argue as if this glaringly obvious fact is irrelevant/non-existant when examining the degree to which Du Bois' words are applicable to contemporary America.
Is that your final answer?
Jesus you are being dishonest to the point of blind absolution.
The article is about the historical prevalence of white supremacy in america. It talks about events in the past and tracks it through to contemporary issues.
In 1920'ish a civil rights activist penned an opinion relating to a contemporary issue of the time where black soldiers who had returned from war, were still treated as inferior people. This was used to illustrate a critical point in the rise of the civil rights movement where black people became less silent and more vocal of the prejudices they face because they questioned the validity of the prejudices they faced, because simply why could they fight and die for America in a foreign land as equals, but were not allowed to live in America as equals.
If I had told you the story of how the invention of the first stone tool led to the development of a plasma cutter and in thay story I mention that a pivotal point in the development of the plasma cutter was the use of mercury in the metallurgical process. You would now be telling me that since mercury is dangerous how can I be referring to this toxic chemical it does not make plasma cutting any different.
You are distracting from that specific context.
You are asking me to defend the authors alleged Cultural Marxism. Yet you have failed to show in the context of that quote what was Marxist about it and what was inherently wrong with his view about returning black soldiers? So I cannot defend something you haven't offered up for me to defend. The article traces a subject through history and mentions one of the steps through that path.
You have chosen not to look at that step, but take it out and place it in a context that neither the originator, the New Yorker author or myself have placed it and want me to defend that intellectually dishonest position.
And in parallel to that you lead a character assassination of the author based on a separate matter to the specific context of the quote.
So provide me an answer to these three questions -
Tell me what is wrong with voicing the concern that when black soldiers returned from WW1 and WW2 for that matter, they were still subjected to prejudice and segregation?
Within that statement, why is it Marxist?
Why should we ignore that statement?
Sign up with Google