Northwestern University journalist says even the way white people walk on sidewalks is racist



Northwestern University's student newspaper recently published an article that reportedly asserted that "white people walk awkwardly on sidewalks" because of "internalized racism," according to a Wednesday report from Campus Reform.

What are the details?

Opinion editor Kenny Allen wrote the Daily Northwestern article, "Are the sidewalks at Northwestern too white, too?" which asked if white people walked on sidewalks certain ways because of racism.

“When I first got to Northwestern, I wondered why walking around on campus could be so frustrating," he wrote. "Even when sidewalks were relatively empty, I would often have to walk way around people to pass without bumping into them."

"At first," he reasoned, "I chalked it up to the geographic diversity of the school; maybe the people that came to this school were used to different ways of moving through a public place."

After discussing the problem with his other black friends, Allen said, he concluded that "people at this predominantly white school would not move out of our way on the sidewalk."

Pointing to University of Richmond sociologist Bedelia Richards' test to determine whether college campuses are racist, Allen concluded that internalized racism is what prompts white people to walk on sidewalks the way that they do in places such as Northwestern University.

Allen explained that such conclusions were connected to Jim Crow segregation laws.

"That social order required black people to yield to white people whenever possible," he wrote. "Black people were made to show deference to white people anytime they interacted. One of the ways they were made to do so was by stepping off the sidewalk when a white person was walking past. The informal rules are passed down through generations just like any other kind of etiquette.

"White people came to expect the right of way in public spaces," he continued. "White people who were accustomed to moving through the world like that — intentionally or not — taught their kids to move through the world in the same way. And the racism that undergirded Jim Crow wasn't eliminated just because the laws were no longer overtly racist."

What's next?

Allen concluded that it is this very practice that ought to prompt people to become more serious about "uprooting ... white supremacy."

"Many White people walk around campus having unknowingly absorbed this particular facet of white supremacy, and the leaders of the institution do little to make us believe that white supremacy is something worth challenging in the first place," he insisted.

"Uprooting that white supremacy requires both recognizing its scale and disrupting it however it shows up," he added — even if it shows up on the sidewalk next to you.

Jemele Hill says ‘patriotic symbols have been weaponized’ to ‘undermine and diminish the humanity of black and brown Americans’



Sports journalist and writer Jemele Hill declared recently that sports should absolutely nix the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" ahead of games because the practice has merely become an "empty gesture of patriotism."

Hill also insisted that the national anthem and the American flag have both been "weaponized" against U.S. citizens in order to "undermine and diminish the humanity of black and brown Americans."

What are the details?

In an article for the Atlantic titled "The Problem with Mandatory Patriotism in Sports," Hill wrote, "Playing 'The Star-Spangled Banner' at sporting events has become an empty gesture of patriotism — so empty that, when the NBA's Dallas Mavericks quietly began skipping the ritual, 13 preseason and regular-season games passed before anyone noticed."

Hill was referring to last week's news that the Dallas Mavericks stopped playing the national anthem before games.

Following the news, the NBA almost immediately responded and said that the national anthem must be played before all games in accordance with league rules. Its response was reportedly a direct rebuff of the Mavericks' decision.

"The Mavericks should have held their ground," Hill reasoned, "because playing the national anthem shouldn't be a pregame ritual in American sports. No during a time when many people — including many athletes of color — are deeply uncomfortable with how patriotic symbols have been weaponized to undermine and diminish the humanity of black and brown Americans."

National anthem has been interpreted as 'mocking or threatening' black people

Insisting that the NBA should altogether revisit its national anthem rule, Hill added, "The ritual enforces a rote, narrow idea of patriotism — one that pro sports should be working to change, not uphold."

"The anthem has always represented the nation's hypocrisy more so than its promises," she insisted. "The lyricist was Francis Scott Key, a Maryland slave owner who once said that Africans in America were a 'distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community.' Key wrote the song during the War of 1812. The second half of its third verse — which includes the lyric 'No refuge could save the hireling and slave, from the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave' — has been interpreted as mocking or threatening the black people who escaped their enslavers and fought for the British."

Hill continued, pointing out that the national anthem, "was meant to rally spectators around American democracy" during sporting events that dated back to the Civil War.

"The song that eventually became the national anthem was meant to rally spectators around American democracy — even if conditions in the United States were deeply unequal," she added.

Trump and conservatives were able to 'hijack the conversation'

In contemporary society, Hill noted, "Commentators who did not object when the anthem was used for conservative causes became indignant when Colin Kaepernick used it in 2016 to draw attention to police violence against black people."

"In taking a knee during 'The Star-Spangled Banner,' the former NFL quarterback unwittingly created an opportunity for former President Donald Trump and other conservatives to hijack the conversation," Hill insisted. "As a candidate and as president, Trump criticized Kaepernick's protest to score political points. Real patriots stood for the anthem, Trump and his supporters insisted. And in their view, those who stood – or peacefully kneeled — against injustice were traitors."

During Trump's presidency, Hill pointed out, Americans were subjected to "far too many images of white supremacists waving the national flag" while "shouting patriotic slogans."

"The insurrectionists at the U.S. Capitol did just that, even as they tried to overturn a free election," Hill wrote. "Trump any many other Republicans who impugned Kaepernick's patriotism now want the rest of the country to ignore the Capitol riot and move on. If it wasn't clear before why people of color feel uncomfortable with the conservative definition of patriotism, it should be now."

Hill concluded, "Mandatory patriotism doesn't give Americans reason for pride; it only highlights the country's failures."

Nick Sandmann fires back at ACLU official who complained about conservative student's college admission, shreds cancel culture



Nick Sandmann is firing back at the American Civil Liberties Union staffer who publicly condemned Transylvania University for accepting his application to attend the Lexington, Kentucky, school.

Sandmann, the former Covington Catholic High School student smeared in 2019 for what many mainstream news outlets erroneously reported as "mocking" a Native American man during the March for Life, is now speaking out in defense of his conservative values.

Sandmann was the subject of much controversy and criticism, and his family filed lawsuits against media giants such as CNN and the Washington Post in response.

Both outlets settled defamation lawsuits with Sandmann earlier this year.

What are the details?

In an op-ed for Fox News, titled "I'm a pro-life conservative Republican college student who won't let cancel culture silence me," Sandmann — now a freshman at the Kentucky university — said he refuses to fall victim to "cancel culture."

"Beginning the college year during the coronavirus pandemic is difficult enough for millions of students," he wrote. "But the beginning of my freshman year at Transylvania University in Kentucky is being made even more difficult by an unwarranted attack against me by the cancel culture due to my conservative views."

Recalling his time dominating 2019's news headlines, Sandmann said enough is enough.

"[U]nbelievably, an official of the American Civil Liberties Union — a liberal group that claims to be dedicated to defending free speech — criticized the university last week for admitting me, saying my admission was a 'stain' on the school," he explained.

The staffer, identified as Samuel Crankshaw — a Transylvania University graduate — said that Sandmann solely exists to "troll, intimidate, and play victim." Sandmann, however, said he has never met Crankshaw — who he says knows nothing about Sandmann other than what he has read in the news.

"Yet still, he tries to cancel me and demand that I be denied admission to college," he wrote. "Why? Because he seems outraged that my conservative values don't align with his left-wing ideology."

He warned, "If you are a conservative like me, watch out. The intolerant left might come for you, too."

"Jonathan Turley, a scholar known for being a strong advocate of free speech, responded on his blog to defend the need for free speech and defend me from Crankshaw's attack," Sandmann noted.

Turley wrote:

I have previously written, as a long supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), about my concern over how the venerable group has changed under its current leadership, including a departure from its long robust defense of free speech. Recently, the ACLU has abandoned its famed neutrality and has not supported some on the right while supporting those on the left.

Turley later added, "[I]t is far more alarming to see an ACLU official rallying people against a young man whose chief offense appears to be that he is publicly (and apologetically) conservative and pro-life."

Sandmann said, "Turley is right. Colleges have a reputation of being toxic places for conservative, pro-life ideas like the ones I hold. But an alumni assuming I'll act in a certain way before even meeting me? Well, that's a new low."

He pointed out that he's obviously not the only young conservative to be virtually pilloried for his beliefs and that conservative students across America regularly face this type of pushback.

"If the threats to students like me don't come from the left-leaning administrators, the threats come from fellow students who call on campus leadership to cancel events or shut down student organizations that dare challenge their left-wing view of the world," Sandmann added, blasting the notion of college and university "free speech zones" as "ridiculous."

"Our entire country is a free speech zone, enshrined by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution," the young man wrote. "And no one has the right to cancel the Constitution or its First Amendment."

Anything else?

The newly minted college freshman went on to laud President Donald Trump and Kentucky Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for remaining strong in the face of leftist pressure.

"Sen. McConnell and President Trump are the exact leaders we need at a time when liberal mobs take glee in destroying our lives and erasing our voices," Sandmann said.

"Now more than ever, we need more speech, not less," he reasoned. "We need to hear new ideas and to learn from others. That is exactly what I and so many students returning to school want to do. I invite Democrats to join us."

He concluded, "[T]o those who are inclined to write my future for me, I say let me define myself. I will not be canceled."

Woman harassed by Black Lives Matter protesters speaks out against chilling incident, explains why she refused to raise her fist



Lauren Victor, the woman who refused to be intimidated by Black Lives Matter protesters, has spoken out against the bullying she endured last week.

A video of Victor facing off with rambunctious, demanding Black Lives Matter protesters went viral last week after she refused to put her fist in the air in support of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Protesters converged on Victor and a friend, who were dining outside at a Washington, D.C., restaurant on Aug. 24.

What are the details?

In a Thursday op-ed in the Washington Post, Victor said that the group's bullying tactics are not effective.

Titled, "I was the woman surrounded by BLM protesters at a D.C. restaurant. Here's why I didn't raise my fist," Victor explains that the group didn't even identify themselves when they approached her table.

"I asked who they were and why they were marching," she writes. "No one would answer me. Why march and hold back your message?"

Victor, a 49-year-old urban planner who says she does support Black Lives Matter, adds that the group went about their activism entirely in the wrong way, insisting that it's "never OK to coerce people's participation."

"That is just bullying," she adds.

"When [protesters] crowded around my table and started demanding that I raise my fist, it was their insistence that I participate in something that I did not understand that led me to withhold my hand," Victor explains. "In retrospect, I would have done the same thing even if it was crystal clear to me who they were and what they stood for. If you want my support, ask it of me freely. That's what we do in a democracy."

Sometimes 'those thing turn on a dime'

At the time, Victor initially admitted, "I felt I was under attack."

"To have a crowd — with all that energy — demand that you do this thing," Victor added. "On one level my best guess was no one was going to hurt me but those things turn on a dime."

How To React When Black Lives Marxists Target You www.youtube.com