The good Dr. King’s dream, by any objective measure of today’s cultural discourse, is a dream unrealized.
Except today, the points of contention aren’t just the color of an individual’s skin. Nay, baiters find a way to envelop as many as possible into their virulent toxicity, so they’ll attack the spouse as well.
Such was the case of Tamera Mowry-Housley. In a recent interview with Opera (who, ironically, is guilty of her own peddling in race matters), Mowry opened up about hatred leveled against her on social media for her 2011 marriage to Fox News correspondent Adam Housley. Her unspeakable crime–it almost pains me to type it, the sheer injustice of it–is to be a black woman married to a white man.
“I get called ‘white man’s whore,’” she said. “The new one was ‘back in the day you cost $300, but now you’re giving it to him for free.’” Giving him love for free, and it being freely returned? Gosh, how dare you, ma’am? As much as the Housley’s embody the “cream” of King’s dream rising to the top and achieving fruition, so must the Purveyor’s of Tolerance in creed, but not in deed muddy the waters.
Other cases abound. As Michelle Malkin explains in her latest column, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was in day’s past a similar target for the intolerant Tolerance crowd, the sort who claim compassion towards a minority group but demonstrate anything but:
“USA Today columnist Barbara Reynolds slammed Thomas and his wife for their colorblind union: “It may sound bigoted; well, this is a bigoted world and why can’t black people be allowed a little Archie Bunker mentality? … Here’s a man who’s going to decide crucial issues for the country and he has already said no to blacks; he has already said if he can’t paint himself white he’ll think white and marry a white woman.”
Between Mowry, Melissa Harris-Perry mocking Mitt Romney’s adopted black grandchild (herself a black adopted child of Mormons), even Malkin herself–a woman of Oriental heritage married to a white man–it goes to show the tolerance for intolerance towards those who belong to a supposedly unacceptable social construct. While the discussion could be on the content and character of their relationships, it’s instead polluted with vapid prostrations surrounding the color of their different skin tones. The Romney’s welcoming an adopted baby into the family, who might otherwise have a poor outlook on life, is supposed to be a good thing. But thanks to those whose worldview is as shallow as a sidewalk puddle, the black baby in the white family was the angle they shot for. Winning!
There’s tolerance for intolerance in other arenas, too. Candice Cameron-Bure– of “Full House” fame–had the unmitigated gall to imply that, within her own marriage, it’s appropriate for her to “do everything in my power to make my marriage and family work,” and as such, lives by the Biblical precept to be “submissive” to her husband as head of the household.
Letting her man “be a leader” made the collective feminist stomach churn. On Twitter, women’s magazine Marie Claire “thanked” her for “setting women back approximately a billion years”. Precisely what injury does it do to other women, oh bastion of “appropriate” “feminism”, for Bure, within her own bloody marriage, to let her husband lead? Eventually, a decision in a matter must be made. Bure, presumably after offering her two bits, lets her husband take responsibility. Is that so eeeeevil?
Interestingly, though unsurprisingly, the very people doing their best to impugn the choices of others recoil in horror should the favor be returned against their pet cause. True tolerance–where one respects a differing opinion, yet reserves the right to their own–is, at best, an elusive quality. We have more work yet, Dr. King.
I leave you Thomas Jefferson, who had a way words. Feel free to substitute “god” with the issue du jour:
“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”