I know, you are as shocked as I was. From Gawker:
Everyone knows that conservative magazine National Review is not racist. Sure, it used to publish John “avoid concentrations of blacks” Derbyshire — but it’s also treated race with sensitivity and restraint, as in this column about how President Obama isn’t really black and this all-white symposium on black unemployment. So why is writer Jay Nordlinger using the ethnic slur “wetback” in his column today?
Truth is, some conservatives lamented that he had indeed “grown” in office. He had gone out of his way to accommodate liberals and moderates, and to accommodate the Kremlin. He was raising taxes, spending like crazy, welcoming wetbacks, pursuing arms control. One common cry from the right was, “None of this would be happening if Ronald Reagan were alive.”
Surely, he’s not just using an offensive ethnic slur just for the sake of alliteration? Not according to one commenter: “It looks to me like Mr. Nordlinger used the w-word to be ironic,” he (or she) explains. “Nothing offensive about it in this instance.” Ohhhhhhh. It was ironic racism, which is always okay.
“Wetback”? Are you fucking kidding me? Was he high when he wrote that? How racist do you have to be to use the word “wetback” in what pretends to be a respected journal of conservative views? I’m not even going to touch the fact that if Ronald Reagan were alive, he’d have to run as a Democrat in today’s political landscape. I can’t get over the racial slur.
Perhaps Mr. Nordlinger should have sent his column over to Yo, Is This Racist? before hitting the publish button.
Sorry, I’m not linking to the National Review. For all I know, the post has already disappeared. But this picture of it hasn’t.