Post-U.S. election, the newest word coined is “white-lash”. It rhymes with “white trash” and kinda sounds like an ivory-coloured whip but it’s a term used by some on the left to blame American Caucasians for screwing up Billary’s coronation.
This pithy buzz word comes courtesy of CNN’s Van Jones, clearly devastated by the will of the American people. Trying to make sense of what happened on election night, Jones said:
“People have talked about a miracle [but] I’m hearing about a nightmare. This was a white-lash. This was a white-lash against a changing country. It was a white-lash against a black president in part. And that’s the part where the pain comes.”
Barack Obama won two terms in that same predominantly-white US of A so if the “white-lash” factor was real, Obama never would’ve made it into the White House.
And wasn’t Donald Trump’s opponent also Caucasian? Race and gender were irrelevant. If Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were white males, I’d wager Tuesday’s result would’ve been the same.
Progressives have told us terms that use the word “black” in a negative context are an unconscious and passive form of racism, so why is a 100% racially-based term such as “white-lash” okay?
I guess there’s a different standard applied when a pejorative term is directed at Caucasians.
Could this prevailing attitude that embraces double standards steeped in hypocrisy be part of the reason Hillary lost?
I’d say yes, that, and people expressing disdain for elitism at every level was the reason for the election result. Voters wanted an alternative, and they got it.