Sometimes Racial Voting Is Approved by the BBC

The BBC approves of voting for one’s own ethnicity: when it’s Mexicans doing it.

Border politics in Texas ahead of the mid-terms

I know I’m late in getting to this, but it’s been a long week. In any case, at the beginning of the clip (just after the intro voice over) listen to what the candidate on the stage says: “…we need workers…” Remember that for later.

Andy Gallacher is in a town where both the Democrat and Republican candidates are Mexican-American. The Democrat (the guy who says we need workers) says it’s an honor to be elected to serve, and diversity is what makes this country great. We’ve all heard that before.

Gallacher talks about how the race of candidates matters, but asks, since both candidates are of Mexican descent, how do the voters feel now? He gets a couple of Mexican-American vox pops to say that issues are more important than race. What a shock.

For what seems at first like no reason, Gallacher then speaks to a Mexican-American academic who says his research shows that, regardless of what they say beforehand, most people vote for the race in the end. The Beeboid even helpfully says, “for their own kind”. In stark contrast to all BBC reporting about white people, either in the US or UK, this is presented as a good thing. Hispanics need Hispanic representation. Never mind any non-Hispanics living in the area. If one non-white ethnic group has the majority, then it’s important for someone of that ethnicity to represent them in government.

I say it seemed at first there was no reason for Gallacher to bring in this academic to talk about racial voting because both candidates are of the same ethnicity. So why talk about whether or not the voters will vote for a Hispanic candidate? It’s a moot point.

Then we got to the part where he talks to the Republican candidate. Horrifyingly, he’s wearing a US flag pin on his lapel. He says he’s proud to be an American, while still being proud of his heritage. But for him, American comes before Mexican, as one is his cultural background and the other is his country. He also has lighter skin, no ethnic mustache, and no trace of the Mexican accent like his Democrat opponent does.

So he’s presented to the viewer after the academic who speaks of racial voting because he’s clearly a traitor to his race. He doesn’t talk about diversity, so he is no good. The subtext here is that the Mexican-American voters will and should vote for the candidate who is more proud of the Mexican part than the American part.

Remember the beginning of the clip where the Democrat said in his speech that “we need workers”? Of course he’s talking about the racial politics of illegal immigration. When he spoke of diversity to Gallacher, he was spouting the same old theme we heard a few months back on the BBC that it was racist to be against illegal immigration. Of course the qualifier “illegal” is absent now, as it always is when advocates speak. The Democrat doesn’t care about the law: he cares only about his race. When he’s talking about “diversity”, he means we should grant amnesty to people who look like him. How bringing in more of the same will lead to diversity is beyond my tiny little brain.

The Republican doesn’t talk that way. Or at least isn’t encouraged to by the Beeboid.

The thing is, there’s racial politics everywhere in the US. Right here in New York, former mayor (African-American) David Dinkins endorsed the non-white candidate for State Senate in the Democrat primary in my neighborhood. Here’s his reason:

I grew up in Harlem where we taught that New York City is a melting pot. Well I don’t agree with that. I have always said that we are a gorgeous mosaic. We have as many separate ethnic identities as the United Nations. That’s why we have a parade about every hour and a half. But it is important, it is so very important, particularly for the people of this district who vote on Tuesday to recognize how important it is to understand that the city is changing. Most people in the city are going to look more like us than others and that’s just a fact. It is not a bad thing. It is frankly a good thing.

Imagine if Giuliani had said the equivalent. The BBC would be all over it. Not only that, but Espaillat’s opponent was a Jew. You’ll never hear from the BBC that anti-Semitism is common in the African-American and Hispanic communities. And NYC isn’t a border town, so it’s inaccurate to portray the racial angle in that Texas town as being due to its proximity to the border. The fact that they’re Mexicans is obviously connected to the border, but not the racial angle in the abstract.

But the BBC approves of racism when it’s not white people doing it, so never mind.

Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Sometimes Racial Voting Is Approved by the BBC

  1. George R says:

    Yes, the hypocrisy of BBC-NUJ on race.


    “If Mexico fails”


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Mexico is already a failed state.  Not that you’d hear it from the BBC.


  2. RGH says:

    Beeboid: “the natural instinct to side with one’s own kind”.

    Wow! And I thought that ‘race’ was a mere social construct invented by whitey to divide and rule. Silly me. It’s a natural instinct to be culturally partisan.

    So Latino Hispanics vote for ‘their kind’, Moslems will follow their natural instinct and vote for ‘their’ kind.

    And white people will, of course, exhibit inherent racism by voting for ‘their kind’.

    What a schizoid  world the Beeboid inhabits.


    • dave s says:

      Nothing could be more patronising to other racial groupings than the white libbie assumption that they, and only they , are above such considerations as race.
      Thus a white non liberal is racist almost by definition by virtue of being white. A non white, not a member of the liberal elite, is held to a lower standard of behaviour by virtue of not being white and can never be racist. It is completely insane and unreal but it is the world of the liberal.


  3. Natsman says:

    That seems on the face of it, to be an “Oh, dear, shot myself in both feet” moment…


    • London Calling says:

      I read somewhere at the time, 98% of afro-Americans voted for Obama. Even randomly some afro-Americans must have held differing political views, so I can’t fathom how voting your own ethnic is “racism” if white folks do it, and not if done by people of colour.

      In Tower Hamlets we see the same process at work.  Our new fellow-Britons don’t seem to want to integrate or adapt to their new country of residence. One of TB’s big lies (there were so many) was that if you didn’t support Multiculturalism you must be racist. Yet the Tower Hamlets Muslims dont seem very Multiculturally inclined themselves – more Monocultural.

      I don’t think the BBC is capable of articulating the concept of racism among ethnic groups.


      • RCE says:

        There is absolutely nothing multicultural about Islam. The truth is that the UK is poly-monocultural, not multicultural.

        This is a great post. Thanks David.


  4. John Anderson says:

    OT   Who says Americans lack a sense of humour ?  Some of the comments on this site are hilarious.

    Roll on 2 November !


  5. Dez says:

    London Calling,

    I think perhaps what you read somewhere at the time was that 95% of afro-Americans voted for Obama.

    Perhaps you didn’t read that in 1968; 92% of Afro-Americans voted for the Democrat candidate Hubert Humphrey. But he wasn’t Black and he didn’t win; so you’re completely oblivious to the fact. Go figure.


    • John Anderson says:

      The 1968 election was in the civil rights era.  An entirely different context.

      Obama claimed he was “post-racial”.  But time and time again he has played the race card.  

      Here’s a black writer explaining – even to someone as closed-mind as Dez – why black voters should be more discriminating.  Endless blind voting for the Democrats has served them ill.  And the point was – the BBC seems unable to recognise that racism is often exhibited by races other than white.


  6. TrueToo says:

    David Preiser, this is probably the best single example I’ve seen of the BBC’s hypocritical agenda. Great post. Its always agenda first for the BBC and the news a distant second.


  7. deegee says:

    I think perhaps what you read somewhere at the time was that 95% of afro-Americans voted for Obama. I doubt it.  
    However, it has been estimated that Obama took 85% of the black vote in the Democratic primaries (let’s ignore allegations of vote fraud in the Obama’s favour, for the moment. Look at We Will Not Be Silenced). Please read the Audacious Epigone’s Democratic nomination voter totals by race and gender for a complete analysis of the votes in the Democratic primaries.
    The Democratic party is a lot blacker than the national electorate. Blacks made up 19.2% of the Democratic contests compared to 11.7% of the general. That 7.5 point jump makes an enormous difference in a lop sided contest. It was enough to give Obama the nomination.

    Without blacks, Hillary beat Obama, 57.1%-42.9%.


    • deegee says:

      A tangental observation. It has been alleged that Rev. Martin Luthor King Jr., a Republican, essentially made a deal with the Kennedys that in return for their support he would deliver the Black vote to the Democratic Party.

      I don’t know what actual evidence there is for this but before the Civil Rights campaigns of the 60s southern Blacks were republicans in opposition to the Southern Democrats enforcing Jim Crow laws and in recognition that it was the Republicans under Lincoln that abolished slavery.