Political correctness during racial unrest

October 24, 2020

Michael Rivera


I’m Michael Rivera. I’m an American citizen.

When it comes to how much to value my political opinion, that’s all you need to know about me. If you want to call me Latino or Hispanic, go ahead. I’m OK with that. I call myself American.

I suppose I’m a minority, but everyone is a minority of some sort. I am not a Person of Color. I don’t know what that means, and I think it’s a term that divides us instead of bringing us together. There is way too much “Us versus Them,” too much identity apartheid, in today’s political rhetoric.

I did one of those DNA tests, and my ethnicity estimate is 37 percent from Spain and 23 percent from Indigenous Americas for starters. Then there’s the 17 percent from Ireland and Scotland, 6 percent Basque, 5 percent from France, and 3 percent European Jewish. Finish (no, not Finnish) it off with a smattering of 1 percent traces, including Northern Africa, Mali, the Andes and the Middle East.

Now I know that these tests are not definitive. They measure the appearance of genetic markers in current populations in various places and make assumptions that those markers have been there for a few centuries.

My Native American ancestors were here for thousands of years, but before that their ancestors were living in Asia, so it’s interesting, but maybe it doesn’t matter.

And that’s my point — it doesn’t matter.

I don’t want any additional rights because my formerly European family has been here since the 1600s or because my Native American family has been here long before that. I don’t expect more privileges or fewer privileges because of my ethnic pedigree or melanin content.

As an American citizen, I’m entitled to one vote, just as is the American citizen who was naturalized yesterday. I want my one vote, and I don’t want anyone else to have more than one vote.

America is always a work in progress, but it’s a wonderful country, and that’s why so many people want to come here.

I don’t blame people for wanting to come here, but the rule of law is one of the reasons this is a great nation, and if we don’t control our borders, we have no rule of law and, eventually, will have no country. I think my Mexican cousins and my Irish cousins both have to play by the rules.

Since many immigrants come from Latin America and Asia, and since most illegal immigrants come from south of the border, anyone who thinks we should enforce our laws against illegal immigration or reduce legal immigration is called a racist.

Why? Because it’s easier to dismiss someone with an epithet than it is to engage in a discussion about an appropriate immigration policy.

We should be proud that we have built a country so attractive to others across the world. But there are almost 8 billion people on the planet, and they can’t all live in the United States. We have an obligation to look after our neighbors and fellow citizens first.

I think we can do a better job of that, and protecting our environment, and rebuilding our infrastructure, if we reduce immigration. So you can call me a racist for that, too, although it turns out that a couple of national commissions have studied the issue and agreed with me.

E pluribus unum — “Out of many, one.” It’s a motto that has built this nation. You can agree or disagree with me on a proper immigration policy, but we can discuss our differences without the ugly name-calling that is so common to these debates.

Call me politically incorrect for supporting immigration cuts. I’m OK with that. Look at my DNA results again. I’m the United Nations of political incorrectness … and proud to be an American.

Michael Rivera is a Paso Robles resident who has lived on the Central Coast for more than 48 years.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Think the article should be titled “Political correctness during a time of protest”. This is more accurate. The protests are overwhelming peaceful; multiracial in composition; and as to racial issues, while they are the significant issues in dispute, there are other concerns on some protestors’ minds. Based on my cursory observation of videos of the national scene, in the instances when protests turned to unrest, it seems young white folks predominate and ‘the cause’ often changes to nonracial concerns. So, the phrase “racial unrest” in the title is politically incorrect, dated from the 1960s. It implies that black folks exclusively are causing strife. This is not true. The author and CCN should change this offensive and inaccurate title.

Likewise, calling a person racist because they want enforcement of laws against illegal immigration, or reduced legal immigration, is politically incorrect. It is not racist to want immigration policy reform that may result in fewer immigrants; a more secure border; and the end of citizenship by birth. In an era of climate change and resource limitations, we may be facing mass migrations. Likewise in an era of asymmetrical warfare, a strong secure border, with open but controlled immigration, is just smart. ICE is very necessary.

In summary, per Wikipedia, “political correctness is a term used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.” It is a practice in which language is use more accurately. I think we are intelligent enough to begin the practice, and shun media and discussions that are offensive.

I beg to differ, protests, nationally, have not been “overwhelmingly peaceful.” In fact many have been and still are riots, not peaceful protests as you say. Countless destroyed businesses destroyed and shattered innocent lives. Huge destruction in several downtowns across America.

As for here locally, shutting down traffic on a major highway, marching through town yelling foul epithets at outdoor diners, shaking down businesses for monetary contribution with thinly veiled threats….I don’t call that “overwhelming peaceful.”

Get real

Read their report.

The (only) 7 percent that is deemed non-peaceful is so disproportionately violent and destructive that the percentage breakdown does not capture the true damage done to society, and to individuals, and is therefore not capturing the true essence of the last several months. Merely applying a number, i.e. 7 percent, does not capture the real human toll in terms of the destruction of small businesses that families spent a lifetime building, only to have looters (those mostly peaceful protestors) use social justice as a cloak for their true motives, theft, (free stuff) and hate.

I once operated statistical models and it’s been some years, but it seems to me there is no point in debating what is so obvious to a reasonable person paying attention to the news beyond the one-sided, carefully homogenized material presented by the likes of CNN and MSNBC and even our own SLO Tribune . Sometimes “you don’t need a weatherman telling you which way the wind is blowing.”