The phrase “systemic racism” has become a social justice catch-all for the most woke among us. Joe Biden falls into that camp, repeating the phrase ad nauseam while his administration pushes radical policies involving things like critical race theory.
What’s odd, though, is that when you ask for specific examples of what constitutes systemic racism, you are usually met with either blank stares, long drawn out answers that lead nowhere, or an insistence that even asking the question is racist. Anecdotes only go so far, and the very inclusion of “systemic” in the phrase means you need to show the system itself is objectively biased, not just that individuals can do bad things within it.
Well, I’ve got good news for all my social justice warriors out there. I’ve found a clear, undeniable example of systemic racism for them to cite. Let’s see how consistent they are.
This per the USDA’s own website.
Question 1: How does USDA define a socially disadvantaged producer?
- The American Rescue Plan Act uses Section 2501 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 as the definition of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, which includes those who are one or more of the following: Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, Asian, and Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Section 2501 does not include gender. While some women may be eligible due to their race or ethnicity, gender is not an eligible criterion in and of itself, based on the law enacted by Congress.
Yes, boys and girls, what you see above is actual, definable systemic racism. Discrimination is written directly into Biden’s COVID relief plan leading to the judgment of people purely on skin color instead of seeking to judge people’s situations on their individual merits. Some might even call that racist. For example, a perfectly well-off Hispanic farmer is eligible for relief while a downtrodden white farmer can’t even apply. Does that make sense to anyone outside of a university faculty lounge?
That’s led to a lawsuit.
CALUMET COUNTY, Wis. (WLUK) — A Calumet County farmer is one of five midwestern farmers suing the federal government.
The group is alleging they can’t participate in a COVID-19 loan forgiveness program, because of the color of their skin. White farmers aren’t eligible, amounting to a violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, the lawsuit contends.
Here’s the thing. What they are alleging isn’t even in question. It’s literally written on the USDA’s website. What we will get now is a test of our courts on whether they want to green-light racial discrimination at the federal level or not.
Of course, Biden’s Agriculture Secretary came out and defended the racism shown by his agency. That per Breitbart.
A group of white farmers is suing the federal government for restricting them from applying for the program based on their race.
“Because plaintiffs are ineligible to even apply for the program solely due to their race, they have been denied the equal protection of the law and therefore suffered harm,” the lawsuit reads.
Vilsack said previous coronavirus relief packages overwhelmingly benefited white farmers.
“[I]t’s pretty clear that white farmers did pretty well under that program because of the way it was structured. It’s structured on size; it’s structured on production,” he said.
Vilsack said he would continue the program and that he expected the Justice Department would defend the legislation in court.
“We’ll obviously have the Department of Justice and others do what they do. But in the meantime, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is going to move forward with that effort,” he said.
These kinds of arbitrary judgments of how certain races “did” under previous legislation seem irrelevant to me. They are also gross in the way they patronize people as simply members of racial sub-groups. Each farmer has their own farm and their own problems. That’s how the USDA should handle giving loans out. They should not be looking at someone’s skin tone and deciding that person is always more disadvantaged than another person of a different race. Actual facts and circumstances should be taken into account.
We are going down a very dark path with this stuff. Discrimination to combat discrimination is not a viable strategy. Rather, it’s one that will simply cause more divisions and tension. Perhaps that’s what Biden and his cohorts want, though?