Obama Obama Supporters Obama's Socialist Pals obamablunders Racial Issues Racism

MR.OBAMA’S MENTOR, BIGOTED PROFESSOR DERRICK BELL SUPPORTED SEGREGATION…….

 

Remember, it’s never racism when a minority is does it.

Derrick Bell was in principle, totally supportive of the ”separate but equal’‘ policy, but only if it was adequately funded by the federal government. His philosophy is no different than that of the non-violent wing of the KKK.

The fact that big time lib CNN radio/TV jock, Soledad O’Brian didn’t even grimace at the notion of segregation being promoted by a Black professor, tells you all you need to know. The media on the whole, are a bunch of dull blades in the kitchen drawer, as well as political hacks for the Democratic party.

Racism, regardless of who dives into the trough, knows no racial bounds. It’s only the Left that really is fixated with race, and sex, in order to keep themselves supposedly relevant in the public’s eye. It’s also coupled with the need to lie, and lie big, in order to paint a false narrative of those who refuse to play along and make non-issues the issue.

BREITBART.COM: If you missed Soledad O’Brien on CNN this morning, you missed Prof. Dorothy Brown of Emory University explaining why Derrick Bell believed black Americans would be better off under “fully funded separate but equal,” while host O’Brien simply grinned.

  • More parsing of Brown’s obfuscations here. (She’s a big fibber)
[Dorothy Brown: Although CRT does not employ a single methodology, it seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy *and the subordination of people of color. One of CRT’s central tenets is the pervasiveness of racism in American society. At its core, CRT accepts the notion that even in the twenty-first century, if you are a person of color in America, you are the victim of racial subordination.]
*(2:56 mark is where she, Dorothy Brown lies about CRT not being about ‘White supremacy)

Here is the exchange from the show (4:13 in the video ):

O’Brien: Would he have said that the civil rights movement was a sham? Or that Brown v. Board of Ed[ucation] was a sham?

Brown: He wouldn’t say it was a sham but he has been very critical of civil rights cases like Brown v. Board of Education. And his argument, Professor Bell’s argument was the solution did not get the children what the children needed, so perhaps the lawyers in the cases didn’t spend enough time talking to the parents. So Professor Bell’s argument is, “You know, maybe if we had gotten fully funded separate but equal that might’ve been a better alternative to what we have today.”

You read that correctly — on national television, Prof. Dorothy Brown put forward Bell’s idea that America would be better off with “separate but equal”, as long as it was “fully funded.”

At that point, Ms. O’Brien completely ignored the extraordinary and completely offensive offensive answer just given and went on to her next question.

Lest you think Brown’s statement was a misreading of Derrick Bell’s position, you should be aware that he wrote an entire book about this idea, entitled Silent Covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the Unfulfilled Hopes for Racial Reform. Marybeth Gasman described the book as follows:

This time he imagined an alternative court decision in the landmark desegregation decision—Brown v. Board of Education. In Brown v. Board and the Unfulfilled Hopes for Racial Reform, Bell, who played a significant role in fighting for justice in the courts after the Brown decision, lamented his actions. After years of reflection he had come to the conclusion that blacks might be better off in a separate but equal society—where equal was enforced.

The book’s official description from Oxford Press says:

Here, Derrick Bell shatters the shining image of this celebrated ruling [Brown]. He notes that, despite the onerous burdens of segregation, many black schools functioned well and racial bigotry had not rendered blacks a damaged race. He maintains that, given what we now know about the pervasive nature of racism, the Court should have determined instead to rigorously enforce the “equal” component of the “separate but equal” standard.

More here.

2 Responses

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *