Monday, February 14, 2011

Now the Pigford (Black Farmers') Case is Interesting

Yesterday, I was reading The Daily Dish, and I saw this post by Conor Friedersdorf regarding the growing outrage tied to the remedy for the infamous Pigford v. Glickman case filed by a group of black farmers who were discriminated against by the Department of Agriculture.  Friedersdorf focused on a National Review article that examines potential fraud tied to the settlement process, and I agree with Friedersdorf that it is always good to call out and examine governmental fraud when it is alleged or occurs, regardless of the political side bringing the issue to light.  However, Friedersdorf was bothered by the fact that interest in the Pigford case seems only to be about the settlement's fraud allegations, and not about the fact that the federal government, between 1983 through 1997, discriminated against black farmers.

Now, I'd debated not writing a post on the Pigford situation raised by The Dish, but I changed my mind when I saw Ta-Nehisi Coates' post title on the subject (reference Friedersdorf's post):  "Somewhere, Someone Black Is Getting Away With Something."  That title made me stop.  I had to read that post, and it is an interesting one.  Coates does a second post on this issue, and it is worth reading as well.

Coates made a point that I found particularly interesting, and one that I am sure my conservative friends may not like.  Here is the quotation from Coates' post that stood out for me:  "This is where you see "conservative" effectively becoming a synonym for "white populist." You would think that the government discriminating against a class of farmers over 15 years, under three different presidential administrations, from two different parties, not in the distant, but recently, would be a pet cause for people disturbed by the overreach of government. In fact those who claim that banner, are disturbed by the remedy applied--not the problem, itself." 

1 comment:

Dave said...

Except like virtually everything Coates writes it's nonsense, because

1) Coates is in favor of racial discrimination against whites and Asians

2) By this definition of "discrimination" many wonderful things like, oh, say, progressive taxation are "discrimination" because the impact isn't racially proportionate

Coates is a great example of how poorly written self-contradictory racist nonsense can be fodder for a journalistic career, provided it pushes the right buttons among the oikophobes in the left-liberal elite.