Al and Jesse and Unions and Race
A few weeks ago I wrote an article asking why national teachers’ unions like the National Education Association and the Federation of Teachers would insert their organizations into the racially charged trial against Zimmerman. Instead of focusing their energies on the mess that is Common Core, with its intrusive data mining of children and high stakes testing to evaluate teachers, they felt the need to fall into the “media trap” that was the Zimmerman trial.
I honestly could not wrap my brain around why they would go as far as to write letters to their members talking about continuing investigations, loss of civil rights and basically social/racial justice mongering. It made no sense to me and the only conclusion I could come up with was that they were going to push the progressive agenda of social justice in the classroom. I still believe this is on their agenda, and it all became very clear for me when I was watching Juan Williams. (I still shudder to think that Williams was actually the voice of reason in this instance…)
During an interview with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly on the O’Reilly Factor, Mr. Williams said, “You never see a protest against the drug dealers. You never see them taking on the unions about the bad schools in the big cities that educate black and Hispanic and poor children.”
Williams went on to say that people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are thriving, and even profiting, on the “grievance industry.” Any time something happens in which they can create a racially charged event, they cry ‘foul’ and ‘racist’. He intimates that perhaps the race mongers like Sharpton and Jackson should focus on what the real problem is–schools and education in the big cities, where most minorities live, are not up to snuff.
Why don’t these grievance industry magnates aim their fury at the national teachers’ unions? The answer has nothing to do with their thirst for teaching the next generation about social justice. In fact, it all comes down to the same thing it always does: money.
Here’s the scenario. People like Sharpton and Jackson don’t actually want to solve the racial divide issue. If they did they would go after the unions and the education system. They would raise the roof on minority neighborhoods throughout the country demanding equal education and better teachers for our poor and impoverished minority children.
Why don’t they fight for these things? Williams put forth the idea that if they went after unions, therefore forcing the unions to address the education issue, they could perhaps help fix the problem of equity in education. In the least they could help make strong steps towards a better future and offering children a hand up, showing them that they are not the victims of racism. They could show them they are instead the victims of a system designed to keep them down and that perpetuates oppression.
If the problem of racism and poor minorities doesn’t exist then what good are Jackson and Sharpton? What good are the unions beating the social justice drum? It’s simply because without this they will be rendered useless. They lose their power. They lose money.
Unlike what the Sharpton’s and Jackson’s of America constantly tell them, children in minority neighborhoods who battle it out to survive every day are not being victimized by “white America” or any other entity. They are being taken advantage of and are victimized by the very people who are claiming to help them.
Instead of doing something to lift these children up and out of their circumstances, they are capitalizing on the grievance industry and in doing so, keeping these kids down.
They really ought to be ashamed of themselves.
The question is who will hold the race mongers and unions accountable to their most vulnerable populations? I fear the answer is “nobody”–but as soon as you put a theory like this forward you are called racist.
Ironic, no?
