Lessons in Hispanic virtue signaling with accents

The Daily Kos reports about Julián Castro:

Julián Castro spells his name with the accent over the “a” in his name. ... That small punctuation mark in Castro’s name serves as a powerful example [read: virtue signal] of nonwhite visibility, particularly for Latinx people ... For the United States, those accents are historic, if only because they likely represent the first Spanish diacritical marks on the name of any serious Latino or non-Latino candidate in U.S. history. ... But for many of the more than 55 million Latinos in the United States, that accent means much more. It says, “es nuestro momento,” this is our moment and we will not be denied.

Castro has made the accent a prominent feature of his campaign logo.

In today's "woke" environment of identity politics, therefore, it's not enough just to be able to speak Spanish. Rather you need to have the correct diacriticals, too. This means that Beto O’Rourke probably should change his name to Betó O'Rourke, or, on the theory that two diacriticals are more "woke" than one, Betó O’Rourké. Cory Booker, on the other hand, appears to be shit out of luck with respect to his name, but perhaps he could go live in San José.

Julian Castro's proposal sounds great to his "woke" constituency and the liberal media, but is actually a non-sensical non-sequitur

2020 Democratic Presidential candidate Julián Castro propelled the issue of reparations for the descendants of slaves into the national debate in March when he asked “If, under the Constitution, we compensate people because we take their property, why wouldn’t you compensate people who actually were property?”

Castro seems to be referring to the power of eminent domain granted to the Federal government under the 5th Amendment, which reads:

... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Castro's argument appeals to the "woke" constituency of the Democratic Party and to the liberal media, but is, of course, a complete non-sequitur. The only logical argument that can be made on the basis of the 5th Amendment is: “If, under the Constitution, we compensate people because we take their property, why wouldn’t we compensate the descendants of former slaveholders, whose property (slaves) was taken from them through the Emancipation Proclamation?” Unfortunately, actually being logically consistent generally means you end up sounding a lot less "woke."

The hideous modern art of politically correct, uncompromisingly doctrinaire grievance/identity politics

In the Democratic debate on Thursday night, Kamala Harris expressed support for forced busing as a means to end segregated schools. Harris' position exposed her utter lack of knowledge of late 20th century history. All of us who were adults back then (Harris was not) remember that forced busing was one of the most divisive and inflammatory issues of that era and that it was opposed by most Americans, regardless of their race. A Gallup poll from 1973 found that forced busing was supported by only 9 percent of blacks and 4 percent of whites. If Kamala Harris wants to run on a platform of supporting forced busing to end segregated schools, she knows nothing about recent history. The fact is: if Joe Biden opposed forced busing, he was right; it was a terrible policy.

Harris also insinuated on Thursday night that Joe Biden is a racist because he had a working relationship with segregationist senators. Harris said "I know you are not a racist, but ... [I]t was hurtful [Awww, poor Kamala!] to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States Senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country." If Ms Harris had only recalled the history of South Africa in the 1990's, she would have realized that, if it was ok for Nelson Mandela to work together with the segregationist F. W. de Klerk to end apartheid in South Africa (for which Mandela and de Klerk were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize), it was ok for Joe Biden to work together with segregationist senators to end segregation in America. After all, Biden's record on race was known to Barack Obama, the first black president, and must have been acceptable to him, since he selected Biden as his running mate two times in a row. [This is not to say that I support Joe Biden. I still can't believe the Dems will nominate "Sleepy Joe." I never would have imagined myself coming to his defense. I guess it's a generational thing.]

Finally, Harris joined all the other Democratic candidates on Thursday night in raising her hand in support of decriminalizing illegal immigration and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Once again, her support for these positions reveals an utter lack of familiarity with late 20th century history, this time the history of the Delano Grape Strike and Boycott and early Latino activism in her own home state of California in the 1960's and 1970's. Harris was obviously unaware of the fact that Cesar Chavez, today's icon of Latino activist groups and the Left, actually fought against illegal immigration because he knew that an endless flood of illegal Hispanic immigrants entering the country would undercut the wages and benefits of those Hispanics who were already here. As immigration expert Mark Krikorian writes of Chavez: "[H]is views on border control would be a perfect fit in the Trump administration."

Eric Swalwell (the dweeb in the class that everyone wishes would just shut up) proclaimed on Thursday night that "the torch needs to be passed to a new generation of Americans." My strongest impression from new-generation-candidate Harris is that she needs to bone up on late 20th century history before she can claim to have enough wisdom to lead this country. She seems not so much to have absorbed the great lessons of the history of her state, the nation, and the world -- a prerequisite for being a great stateswoman -- as she has mastered the hideous modern art of politically correct, uncompromisingly doctrinaire grievance/identity politics.