Why can't Americans talk honestly about race? Blame the 'Civil Rights Baby Boomers'



“Boomer!”

The insouciant snottiness of young Americans spitting this epithet at anyone older and more knowledgeable than them is now a normal part of public life.

CRBBs don’t want 'equality'; they want infantilized black people as a permanent social accessory in which to reflect their own selfless glory.

Why even complain? After all, that's just how kids are.

Except it isn't. It was only in the 1950s that we encouraged teenagers to see themselves as a distinct population smarter than their parents and ancestors. Both the media and their feckless parents have groomed them to be narcissistic, disrespectful braggarts.

Unlike heightened sensitivity to reward and increased risk-taking, an obnoxious sense of entitlement is not a natural human adolescent phenotype. It’s just an outcome of postwar consumer prosperity.

Nonetheless, there are times when even the most stalwart "anti-ageist" (forgive me, readers) is compelled to employ the dreaded B-word.

The hippie elite

There’s a problem with a certain very prominent and vocal set of Baby Boomers, and it’s a problem almost no one will talk about. To mention it, even in a whisper, is to invite censure. It is to invite public excoriation, the loss of your job, and total reputation destruction in your church and your professional field.

If you signal that you know this thing I’m about to describe, you will be called the worst thing possible in 21st-century America: “racist.” And it won’t be only liberals; it will be older conservatives, too.

The problem comes from a subset of older people I call Civil Rights Baby Boomers.

CRBBs are the superannuated flower children of the 1960s and '70s who, according to their own lore, saved the benighted negroes of the American South. They made Dr. King’s dream come true, in their telling. Alone among their species, CRBBs were so very good, and so very socially conscious, that they were the first generation of humans to see how naughty and bad it was to treat black people like second-class citizens.

Summer of self-love

As I write, and as you read, I suspect this sounds a bit over the top. A little uncharitable, a little broad-brush.

But it isn’t.

It’s only because the social identity of CRBBs has been placed on a pedestal atop Mount Very Good People that we feel churlish about criticizing the people now in their 80s who are still standing on street corners shrieking about every lefty-liberal neurosis. It’s why people find it so provocative to suggest that maybe the young-in-the-'60s set went on their political road trips more out of self-regard and vanity than out of “empathy.”

Civil Rights Baby Boomers are Americans stuck in 1965-1970. During their late youth and early adulthood, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law. Some of them attended Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington, and those who didn’t saw it on television like the rest of the nation. Anti-black racism was one of the most pressing issues of their day, so it’s understandable that the America of their youth left a deep impression on their minds.

The trouble is that they’re still living in 1965. They actually believe that white racism against black people is not only as virulent as it ever was in the antebellum South or in the Jim Crow era, but actually worse in the 2020s.

Systemic nonsense

That’s the only way to explain how huge numbers of white people in this age bracket swallow patent nonsense like the ridiculous claims of “systemic racism” in modern America. It’s the only way to explain why otherwise sane white people listen to narcissistic charlatans like black attorney Benjamin Crump, who never saw a false claim of racism that he didn’t want to take to court.

It’s the only way to explain why grandpa-age white liberals get more upset at their grandson who tells the truth about the antisocial and violent behavior of the black kids around him than about their own grandchildren getting beat up or carjacked. We all know the truth: Black crime and hostile, antisocial behavior are all around us.

That's just your opinion, man

I can point right to the FBI statistics showing that black people, while making up only 13% of the population, account for more than half of all murders. I can point out that it’s even worse than it looks, since it’s young men who commit most murders. Young black men account for much less than 13% of the population, yet there they are committing more than 51% of murders.

I could point to other statistics, but none of that matters to Civil Rights Baby Boomers. Objective facts that do not flatter black people are, ipso facto, racist to the CRBB. Try bringing this statistic up at the dinner table with a CRBB. He will accuse you of racism for noticing the fact and stating the fact. It’s that deranged.

Freedom fogies

Have you ever talked, really talked, with a CRBB?

I have. Many of my friends over the years have been CRBBs. “Linda” and “Gregory” were dear friends of mine; they’re both deceased now. They were generous, hardworking people, but they were terminal CRBBs.

Over countless suppers and gin-soaked card games at their dining room table, Gregory recounted his salad days of driving a VW bus down South to march with black civil rights protesters. His eyes lit up when he talked about “harboring” black passengers in his car and how he kept them safe from the stereotypically bigoted Southern sheriff’s deputies who, without Gregory’s presence, would probably have lynched his black passengers.

Yes, anti-black racism was a real thing, and it used to be much more widespread. But forgive me, Gregory, I think many of your tales of a modern Underground Railroad were embroidered by time, drink, and self-regard. It was hard to take them at face value when you claimed seriously that it was “dangerous” in 2015 for a black person and a white person to be seen in a car together in any state below the Mason-Dixon line.

'Street' knowledge

That’s the thing about the Civil Rights Baby Boomers. Despite their claimed goal — to end racism — they were strangely unable and unwilling to rejoice in any of the progress made legally and socially for black people. Their flower-child years were so formative and dramatic for them that they don’t want the problem solved. They don’t really want racism to go away, because then their claim to special status as a singularly selfless and enlightened generation would evaporate.

To claim that black people are in danger in the United States is a cruel farce. Your correspondent grew up in the late 1970s and early '80s, weaned on socially progressive shows like "Sesame Street" that taught color-blindness. In school, my friends were white, black, Hispanic, Vietnamese, and more. As a liberal in my youth, I was proud to be above “racism,” and like many in the 1990s, I assumed America had achieved a mature and stable social and economic system with room for everyone.

Hold the mayo

We all know the truth in 2025. Not only is anti-black racism pretty much gone (it has been for decades), it’s been replaced by anti-white racism. For decades now, it has been socially acceptable — indeed, socially praiseworthy — for black people to call white people “mayonnaise,” to say that white people “have no culture,” to talk about “eliminating whiteness,” and much more. You hear it every day on “respectable” mainstream television.

Meanwhile, it's still forbidden to talk about black crime and the dysfunctional culture that helps create it. Take the astonishingly high rate of fatherlessness in the black community: anywhere from 56% to 67% or higher, depending on your source.

Despite the predictable charges of racism that greeted Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard to restore law and order in Washington, D.C., the fact remains that the anarchy in our cities — especially prevalent in Democrat-controlled cities — is disproportionately caused by black offenders.

RELATED: The DC nobody talks about — and Trump finally did

Photo by TIM SLOAN/Getty Images

The privilege to patronize

I live in the second-whitest state in the union: Vermont. It’s also probably the most liberal and progressive. Whereas formerly quaint Burlington used to have few shootings, they’re now a regular occurrence in our “upscale” downtown shopping district. And while the press goes to great pains to disguise the race of the perpetrators, black men are, of course, “overrepresented.”

When I used to shop downtown, I noticed black customers picking food off the hot bar at the grocery store and eating it while strolling, without paying for it. Staff saw it too. Nobody said anything about the theft, because it was black people doing it.

The fundamental irony is that CRBBs claim they are the only ones to treat black people like human beings. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Civil Rights Baby Boomers wanted a set piece for themselves, something as dramatic and world-changing as the fact that their parents’ generation defeated the Nazis. Yes, I really do believe it’s that cheap and narcissistic.

But it is the CRBBs who dehumanize black people. To treat your fellow man as an equal means to hold him to the same standards of civil, civilized, and legal behavior that everyone is held to. CRBBs don’t want “equality”; they want infantilized black people as a permanent social accessory in which to reflect their own selfless glory.

Stop listening to them. It’s past time for the Civil Rights Baby Boomers to retire from the public discourse.

Academic Whose Work Was Cited As Proof Of ‘Systemic Racism’ Is Fired For Falsifying Research

'The narrative of police genocide of African Americans turned out ... to be complete nonsense,' said Wilfred Reilly.

No, Police Did Not Stem From Slave Patrols

The claim that American policing is a direct descendant of antebellum slave patrols has no basis in actual history.

British police hiring illiterate officers, some with criminal backgrounds, in hopes of meeting diversity quotas: Report



In hopes of satisfying diversity recruitment quotas, London's Metropolitan Police prioritized immutable characteristics prized by DEI consultants over candidates' relevant skills.

An inspector tasked with assessing police forces and policing has concluded that in the pursuit of this allegedly "noble and right" end, the Met police have dropped their standards and in some instances accepted applicants that could not competently read or write in English. Some recruits also happened to have significant criminal histories.

Illiterates on patrol

The Guardian reported that former Met Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick and London Mayor Sadiq Khan hammered out a deal in 2021 to ensure that 40% of new recruits came from black and minority communities. This was, in part, reportedly a decision made in response to the death of George Floyd and the BLM riots that ensued in the United States.

Prior to this arrangement, the target for representation on the basis of preferred immutable characteristics had be 19% of the overall force. At the time the arrangement was made, 15.4% of the force was black, Asian, and minority ethnic, or what English authorities lump together as "BAME."

Khan's administration suggested that the initiative was "generational," constituting "the most significant changes to policing and black communities since the Macpherson report."

Former Rear Admiral Matt Parr, a submariner turned inspector with His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, told the Telegraph, "Everyone is trying to do the right thing here and they are all acting from noble motives by and large, but the upshot is they are taking too much risk with people, and where they are taking risk — and I would support them in taking risk — they are not managing it properly as well."

Parr indicated that recruiters are "taking a risk" on minorities with criminal pasts, but suggested that is not the greater concern. The greater concern is the anecdotal evidence suggesting that in the pursuit of greater diversity, the force has apparently ended up lowering its recruitment standards to onboard persons "functionally illiterate in English" — officers incapable of properly writing up a crime report.

Parr appears at pains to note the failure of this initiative so far, given that he regards it as essential that London — "which will likely be a minority white city in the next decade or so — should not be policed by an overwhelmingly white police force."

According to Parr, for London police to have too many of one racial group, regardless of their competence, is "clearly wrong ... from a legitimacy point of view, and from an appearances point of view."

Notwithstanding this shared desire to reduce the relative number of white people on the police force in England's capital city, Parr suggested that dropping standards to achieve that goal will prove troublesome.

"We have a risk of recruiting the wrong people," he said, highlighting how the new Met commissioner, Mark Rowley, reportedly indicated his desire to "dial down the requirement to meet those targets."

Bobbies from both sides of the bars

The Inspectorate of Constabulary issued a report in November revealing some of the ways that recruiters have apparently dialed down the requirements to meet targets.

Inspectors found applicants who had received vetting clearance despite having previously committed robberies, indecent exposure, DUIs, and domestic abuse-related assaults. There was reportedly little indication that recruiters took into account the possible seriousness of the offenses.

For example, one applicant who passed the recruiters' vetting had previously exposed his genitals to a female victim on numerous occasions, masturbating before her in at least one instance.

Another would-be cop had previously knocked over and robbed an 80-year-old woman. Again, he received vetting clearance.

The inspector's report also found that a number of applicants were cleared despite having close ties to organized criminal groups.

Identity politics apparently has also prevented molesters from being relieved of duty.

The inspector's report noted that a police officer had engaged in improper sexual touching of a member of the public as well as of junior officers. There were, in response, multiple complaints.

The offending officer then applied to transfer to another location. Despite knowing about the allegations, the chief constable at the second location cleared the transfer "on the grounds that accepting the transferee would make the force more diverse" — a decision in which the report's authors suggested "undue weight [was given] to diversity considerations at the expense of an objective assessment of the facts."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

After Uvalde, Should Texas Let School Districts Run Their Own Police Departments?

The onus is on the school districts to prove this model keeps children safe, and is not just another avenue to a government pension.

Democratic Mayors Refuse To Take Action As Violent Crime Surges In Pennsylvania’s Largest Cities

In Philadelphia alone this year, 137 children under age 18 have been shot in city neighborhoods, and 32 have died.

Will Defund The Police Lead To Federal And National Guard Patrols In Big Cities?

The Defund the Police movement will inevitably collide with the reality of rising crime in elections through 2022. Results at the local level will be uneven.

Democrats Are Fleeing ‘Defund The Police,’ But Can Party Leaders Change Course?

'I’m out here with the voters every day,' says Democratic Whip James Clyburn. 'I did a town hall meeting last night in Jasper County, South Carolina, and I can tell you, 'defund the police' is a non-starter, even with black people.'