Microaggression: a subtle but offensive comment or action directed at a minority or other non-dominant group that is often unintentional or unconsciously reinforces a stereotype. The act of discriminating against a non-dominant group by means of such comments or actions. (According to dictionary.com) Also, according to dictionary.com, the term has been around since 1970, and was “coined” by psychiatrist, Chester M. Pierce.
Because I don’t use the term and have no use for the term, I have to look its meaning up in the dictionary to refresh my memory.
I have a friend who is not from the south, and has it in her head that every southerner eats grits three times a day. I’ve indicated to her many times that I’m not a big grits eater, but she always asks me if I’m going to order grits whenever they’re on the menu. She one time ask me if I wanted her grits when they came with the breakfast she had ordered. Could this be a microaggression? I’ll admit it’s a little aggravating, but it certainly doesn’t offend me.
Another time, a fellow southerner asked me if I liked barbecue. Because I don’t like to use the word, “offend,” I’m not going to say that offended me, but it did sort of make me mad. If you’re from the south, you like barbecue. That’s a given. In fact, I only know of two people on the planet, excluding the vegetarians I know, who don’t like barbecue. Neither are from the south and one of them is dead. Could that be considered a microaggression?
Also, I had a black friend years ago who always wanted to know if I was going to see Jeff Foxworthy (a southern white comedian whose material is about the south). Not being the biggest Jeff Foxworthy fan, my answer was always no. Then one time I turned it on my black friend and asked her if she was going to see him. And guess what? It made her mad that I would even ask her if she was going to see a white red-neck performer.
The above examples are silly, but so is the concept of microaggression in general. And we all know who invented microaggression? The left, of course.
An article from dailycaller.com on September 1, 2017, told of two professors who claim to have discovered a new form of politically incorrect offense called “invisibility microaggressions,” which are said to be even more subtle than regular microaggressions. Their proposed solution for these invisible microaggressions is to get rid of meritocracy. Not knowing what meritocracy meant, I looked it up. The meaning according to dictionary.com: an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class, privilege, or wealth. A system in which such persons are awarded and advanced. Leadership by able and talented persons.
The Daily Caller refers to a publication called Campus Reform which reported that a recent study by two professors, Jasmine Mena of Bucknell University and Annemarie Vaccaro of the University of Rhode Island, claimed that they are the first academics to discover that “invisibility” is a form of microaggressions not previously described in feminist academia.
Publishing their findings in the NASPA Journal about Women in Higher Education, these two women claim that the environment-based “invisibility microaggressions” occur when they are among the few or only non-whites in a workplace or communal context. Meanwhile, interpersonal “invisibility microaggressions” are said to hinder non-white people in everyday work roles because their ethnicity or gender is being ignored or because they don’t see other non-white people there.
The professors state that unlike regular microaggressions, which require at least two parties for them to occur, invisibility microaggressions only need for one person to feel invisible in an environment. A long black person among a sea of white faces could qualify as one of these invisibility microaggressions, especially if he or she isn’t singled out for being black. But if that happens, then can it possibly be a macroaggression? When I entered the term, “macroaggression” in dictionary.com, it asked me if I meant “microaggression.”
These women further say that the only way to deal with invisibility microaggressions is for campuses and workplaces to single out minorities and shower them with positive attention, to make them feel less invisible.
The women go on to say, rather than commend them on the merits of their work like any other employee, employers and colleges should deliberately select non-white women for high-profile awards and celebrate them on alumni magazines, newsletters, and other materials. These two women also recommend that campus leaders must be especially vigilant in considering and recommending Women of Color for leadership roles.
I thought the passage and signing into law of the 1963 Civil Rights Act was supposed to render a color-blind society where things like being the only black among all whites or the only woman among all men was meaningless. Guess I thought wrong, or I’m just an unenlightened oaf, a deplorable, an uneducated redneck, a bitter clinger. (Have I left anything out?) That’s what I’ve wanted to see all these years and I thought that’s what everyone else, including the left, wanted to see take place.
I think the left may have wanted the above at one time, also. But what happened? What made the left change? In a generation, the United States of America made great strides in becoming a color-blind society when it comes down to skin color. Racism or any other sin, will never be fully eliminated, of course, until Jesus returns and sets up his 1,000-year kingdom on earth.
Again, why is the left doing an about face from what they were advocating for the past forty years? Like I’ve said many times, it is the Democrats/liberals/progressives who are the read racists in this world. From the moment that the 1963 Civil Rights Act was passed, liberals, while in favor of the legislation, felt that blacks were inferior to white folks and thus, needed hand-outs and help in order to succeed. So, liberals made having children out of wedlock routine by giving single women money for each out of wedlock child they birthed. Furthermore, liberals initiated Affirmative Action because they felt that blacks were too stupid to “make it” in the “white man’s world.” The Democrat party is 100 percent responsible for the problems incurred by blacks, and in my opinion, Democrats have destroyed blacks in America. In their new philosophy of promoting segregation, Democrats/liberals/progressives have not changed their minds about blacks being inferior, they’re just continuing to promote those thoughts through different mechanisms.
Again, thanks to dailycaller.com and contributor, Ian Miles Cheong for the information contained in this article.