“We have now sunk to a such a depth, that the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” – George Orwell, circa 1946
Tibetans are Asians. They’re non-white Asians.
What more can, or ought, any wielder of Occam’s Razor say in response to the latest chunk of hyperabstract hackery by Adam Minter? Here’s the money quote in his hack-job: “The Protests, the Olympics, and Race”:
…how can one miss the fact that the most vocal torch protesters (in much greater numbers than Tibetans) are white, while the most vocal torch supporters are Asian?
Well it might be a “fact”, but has it really been “missed” or glossed over? More to the point, does it mean anything other than what ought to be obvious?
What ought to be obvious is:
1. Most people in France and Britain and America – where the torch protests took place – are White. Of course there are more of them in the audience than Asians.
2. The population of Tibet is small. The numbers of Tibetans in France, Britain and America are VERY small, partly because Tibet’s population is small, and also because native born Tibetans sympathetic to the Dalai Lama are not likely to be allowed out of China. That’s why you saw more Whites than Tibetans at the protests in those Western countries. Why does this even need to be pointed out? Why in God’s, or Marx’s, name is anyone taking Mr Minter’s observation seriously at all?
3. Tibetans are Asians. It requires a preternatural kind of contempt for the obvious, for one such as Mr Minter to attribute White support of Tibetans to “racism”.
QED. Enough. The remainder of Mr Minter’s hack-piece deserves no further commentary, except perhaps for the especially loathsome, dishonest anecdote he appended:
Finally, in hope of rounding out this uncomfortable (for me) post with a dose of optimism, I highly recommend Tommy Tomlinson’s fine story on former UN Ambassador and Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young for ESPN.com. Young, as many Americans remember, was also a senior aid to Martin Luther King, and was present at King’s assassination. In Tomlinson’s article, he comes out as a strong supporter of the torch relay:
In 1965, civil rights marchers were beaten by police as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala. In 1996, Young crossed that same bridge, Olympic torch in hand, as part of the torch run to Atlanta. Selma schoolchildren, black and white, walked by his side.
“So, 1965 to 1996, how many years is that?” he says. “All that progress in that amount of time. That was a powerful symbol. That’s what the Olympics is about. That’s what the torch means.”
So, in other words, in some kind of retroactive time-warp mechanism of causality, the Olympic Torch was a proximate cause of the progress which America’s civil rights movement achieved from 1965 to 1996? How – come on, Mr Minter, please tell us – HOW did the Olympic Torch contribute to the achievements of Dr Martin Luther King and America’s civil rights movement?
Contemptible, dishonest rubbish. Oh William of Occam – thou “Invincible Doctor” – please, kindly revisit this World, not with your razor, but with your technologically updated paper-shredder and cyberspace “SPAM” filter, “Occam’s Spam Filter”.