Anti-White Privilege: The Case of Aeman Ansari

Hewitt E. Moore


Huffington Post recently posted an article titled “Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People” by Aeman Ansari. The article is in response to two first-year journalism students being turned away from an event organized by Racialised Students’ Collective because they were White. A quick Google search turned up RSC’s website with the following info:

“Racialised Students’ Collective opposes all forms of racism and work towards community wellness for students. Through education, campus and community organizing, and our commitment to struggle across differences, we seek to responsible [sic] reflect, represent and serve racialized students,” with their mission statement being, “To create and [sic] anti-racist climate on campus that will foster a healthy and rich working and learning environment for all.”

The RSC is a part of the Student Union at Toronto’s Ryerson University. When RSU coordinator Vajdaan Tanveer was contacted via phone about the incident, he responded by saying, “We don’t want (racialized) students to feel intimidated, that they can’t speak their mind because they are afraid of being judged or something they say might be used against them.”

A couple quick thoughts come to mind: 1) it’s another example validating the meme, “Anti-Racist is just a code word for Anti-White”; 2) White students are expelled from school and make National headlines for chanting a racially insensitive song while Student Union groups can openly discriminate against White students without consequence (beyond getting an ambitious student journalist’s op-ed published on a major internet site) and with limited publicity; 3) hypocrisy always has an agenda (usually hatred and/or ignorance).

Being a “person of colour” is central to Ansari’s world view:

Marginalized groups have a right to claim spaces in the public realm where they can share stories about the discrimination they have faced without judgment and intrusion from anyone else.

I am a person of colour and a journalist and so there are two conflicting voices inside my head. But in this case one voice, that of a person of colour, is louder and my conscience does not allow me to be impartial. I have to take a side.

Ansari’s choice between speaking on behalf of the best interest of her “colour” (whatever that is; see photos below) or standing up for normal professional standards is definitely a privilege unavailable to Whites of any occupation. Speaking with a White voice in pretty much any occupation has an entirely predictable result: unemployment.

But just what colour is Ms. Ansari? The two photos accompanying the article are very different in terms of skin color and perhaps nose shape.

 

Unless the darker woman is intended to be a generic “woman of colour” and not the author (which seems odd on the face of it), we seem to have a situation where someone of South Asian descent wants to appear as dark as possible in order to increase her claim to victimhood. After all, South Asians have unfashionably light skin tones which must be downplayed in order to advance one’s career as a professional victim.


Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

The darker photo is much larger than the lighter photo, so most readers doubtless assume that Mr. Ansari is quite dark-skinned. A brilliant move. Ms. Ansari has passed her first test of journalistic integrity with flying colors and is well on her way to a successful career! If you don’t hire her after she graduates, you are obviously a racist. I’m sure HuffPo, which after all vetted these images, would love to have her.

Reminds one of Elizabeth Warren’s claim of Cherokee ancestry which she made to three separate employers, the University of Texas Law School, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and Harvard Law School.

Ansari downplays the open discrimination against two White students, saying that the organizers of the event should have done a better job conveying the importance of the safe spaces and what they mean. She claims these safe spaces for “marginalized groups” (i.e. non-White students) are “not just important, but … essential.”

It’s not just important, but it’s essential, for marginalized groups to have safe spaces on campus to engage with people who understand what they go through. Though this group is funded by Ryerson’s student union, it works to serve a particular group and a particular purpose. Many students at Ryerson have encountered racism in their life that is impossible to forget and many are exposed to discrimination on a daily basis. This group and these sort of events allow people of colour to lay bare their experiences and to collectively combat this societal ailment. These spaces are rare places in the world not controlled by individuals who have power, who have privilege.

These spaces, which are forums where minority groups are protected from mainstream stereotypes and marginalization, are crucial to resistance of oppression and we, as a school and as a society, need to respect them.

The thoughts continue to sprout: 1) we knew the “R word” was coming, didn’t we..; 2) she alleges (without any documentation) “impossible to forget” encounters of “racism” and daily discrimination on behalf of the students without providing any examples from her own life or anyone else’s. Yet the discrimination against the two White students isn’t a allegation — it’s a fact; 3) non-Whites have the power and privilege to openly discriminate without repercussion; 4) safety from stereotypes? How about safe spaces for White people on trains in St Louis?; 5) imagine her outrage if Whites wanted to develop “safe spaces” where they could talk among themselves without fear of being scrutinized by hypersensitive non-Whites for “microaggressions” and other fashionable transgressions against infantile non-Whites.

Ansari marches onward:

The two students who tried to enter the RSC meeting said that they were embarrassed when they were asked to leave and that the group was being counterproductive in sectioning themselves off. … Their embarrassment isn’t as important as the other issues involved here.

Segregation was imposed on people of colour by people of privilege, not the other way around. The very fact that individuals organizing to help each other get through social barriers and injustices are being attacked and questioned for their peaceful assembly is proof that they were right to exclude those students.

How many of those students experienced segregation? Has segregation ever happened in Canada? I’m assuming that Ansari is implying that since segregation was forced on people of “colour” decades ago in the U.S. that it’s okay for students of “colour” to practice it socially today.

Why should Ansari want to live in racially oppressive Canada when she could return to Pakistan where her family apparently came from and be free of White racism? The cynical among us assume that Ms. Ansari has discovered the key to a great career in the anti-White West, one that will ensure her a high-paying job as a journalist in the anti-White media. As noted repeatedly here, the war on Whites is massively incentivized, both for Whites and “people of colour.”

Ansari brings up injustices, but doesn’t elaborate.

Racialized people experience systemic discrimination on a daily basis, on many levels, and in ways that white people may never encounter. The whole point of these safe spaces is to remove that power dynamic. That’s partly what makes them spaces for healing.

I keep waiting for one, just one, example of this discrimination she keeps referring too, which makes these spaces without White people so “essential.”

The West has a history of oppressing people of colour: from Africans who were enslaved and brought to the New World, to native people whose land was stolen by Europeans. This kind of oppression is still witnessed today, in the way the black community is treated in the United States, in the state of African nations trying to recover from the collapse of the previous colonial rule, and in the continuing struggles of indigenous peoples.

Ask and ye shall receive — well kinda. When current realities fail to provide a compelling case for non-White grievance, bring up the distant past. Whites have been burdened with the guilt of slavery for a couple of centuries now, so I knew that she would feel compelled to bring it up. No mention that Whites, uniquely among the peoples of the world, abolished slavery for moral reasons at a time when slavery was endemic to pretty much the entire rest of the world (and still exists in many parts of Africa and Asia), including Pakistan, where forced marriage and sale of children are also common. From Wikipedia:

Slavery concerns about two million people in Pakistan. … The awareness on this issue is limited [including, apparently, Ansari]. Half the slaves nowadays live in India.  Pakistan is among the countries with the highest number and highest percentage of forced labor. In Pakistan, about two million people are in bonded labour. Slavery is illegal in Pakistan. Australian mining billionaire and philanthropist, Andrew Forrest, has made a deal with the province of Punjab to give it access to a technology making diesel from coal for laws against forced labor. Pakistan has forced marriage, sale or exploitation of children and human trafficking.

I have a suggestion. Go to Pakistan and try to make it into a civilized country.

And of course, Whites “stole” the U.S. from the Indians (although there are data indicating that Europeans were actually the natives), as if they (Indians) were the only group of people to have ever been conquered. Is there a piece of the land on the planet that hasn’t been attained via bloodshed? Should the Arabs be guilt-ridden about conquering vast areas of the Middle East, North Africa, Spain and Portugal in the name of Allah? Should the Bantu be guilty about their expansion in Africa at the expense of previous peoples? Should the Han Chinese feel guilty about expanding into South China and Vietnam?

Thankfully, she finally provides proof of the racism/discrimination/oppression/injustice/marginalization (and all the other buzz words she manages to use) to support her argument: “the way the black community is treated in the United States.” Huh? Wait, that’s it? No examples? No stats? No cites? No links? Nothing? Plugging into the intellectual zeitgeist of the left makes writing easy. Any disparate outcome in education, income, or traffic stops can automatically be attributed to White racism. For example, mentioning that IQ might make a difference in education and life outcomes is the epitome of racism.

Ansari ends her ridiculously unsupported rant (which the Huffington Post deemed worthy of publication — auguring well for her career in journalism) on a surprisingly high note:

White people may experience occasional and unacceptable prejudice [like the students who were forced to leave the meeting?], but not racism. … Racism is not personal, it is structural.

She’s right about racism. It’s structural. As it exists today, “racism” is the lynchpin of the structure of White dispossession. It’s a weaponized concept that serves several purposes of the multicultural, anti-White left: 1) an excuse for personal failure and for any difference between racial/ethnic groups where non-Whites have a worse outcome; 2) a derogatory epithet that in practice is only used against White people; 3) validation for anti-White discrimination; 4) a tool for career advancement for non-Whites who, like Ansari, are rent-seeking for positions in the anti-White media firmament.

Charges of “racism” are an attempt at guilt induction emanating from the most prominent media, political, and academic sources throughout the West.  Such charges provide a means to an end for non-White people — the voluntary dispossession of Whites from lands they have controlled for centuries, and in the case of Europe, for thousands of years.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

Comments are closed.