Marty Peretz, a racist, accuses Van Jones of telling the truth while black.

The concept of political correctness is that political realities prevent one from telling the truth. But in our culture the response to perceived political correctness is to encourage white people to tell truths that minorities don't want to hear. The argument is that a society must not be so sensitive of others feelings that the truth is suppressed. Thus people who say negative things to or about minorities even to the exclusion of positive things are supposed to be protected from accusations of racism if what they say is or could be the truth. But what if this freedom is not reciprocated. What if the minorities themselves are not allowed to confront the majority with disturbing truths? Seldom is there such a concrete example of such hypocritical racism as this article, "Cool... But, Yes, Communist", by Marty Peretz.

He starts off in classic anti-PC mode by commenting that he agreed with the first thing he learned from Glenn Beck who is despised by liberals. He then went out his way to speak of Van jones in the most disrespectful and demeaning terms I remember Peretz using for some time. So he is saying is ok to use the insulting and demeaning language referencing a black man because it is all true

For those who are looking for a defense of Van Jones you must look elsewhere. I know nothing Van Jones. My accusations against are solely based upon a textual interpretation of the words in his attack on Van Jones. My case against Peretz indeed wold be greatly aided if all his accusations where true. If they are indeed all true than is repeated use of racism to defame Van Jones would be all the more inexplicable.

The column itself is written much below Peretz usual level. Perhaps his conscience negatively affected his writing. Regardless the quality of Peretz's own writing is so poor as to evade any true critique. Therefore I will focus on the three quotes by which Peretz invited his readers to judge whether Van Jones views were so extreme that it would be "unethical" for him to hold elective office. Is he expecting that we judge these quotes by the same ant-political correctness standard by which he demands we judge his own? Or does he expect us to judge Van Jones's quotes by a different standard. And if he invites to use a different standard is that standard different because of the race of Van Jones.

Exhibit A: Van Jones argues that “the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities, because they don't have a racial justice frame."

Firstly is this quote true. The quote as read is probably truer than what Van Jones may have meant. Are their white polluters and and white environmentalist who steer poison releasing facilities to people-of-color communities for racial reasons? Without a doubt there are.

Do all polluters and environmentalist act with racial motivation, no.

The quote as quoted is certainly true. And if it makes people uncomfortable than that shouldn't be a problem because the truth is more important than political correctness.

Is Van Jones making such an unfair implication that it should disqualify him from public office. There is a high correlation between toxic sites and minority committees. Companies operating purely from a profit motive do have an incentive to put toxic sites in communities where many of the residents are renters as opposed to owners because renters are less likely to advocate against development that is perceived to reduce property values and are less likely to have influence with local zoning and regulating bodies. Minority communities certainly fit this profile. If these companies are guided as the law unequivocally dictates acts with the shareholders interest as the paramount consideration it is logical to assume absent some valuation of minority status that more poison emitting facilities will be placed in minority communities.

The quote is not dated and there has been significant evolution amongst environmental groups. In the past environmental groups were largely white and middle class, and made no bones about focusing on their own communities. The argument was rarely don't produce products that require this facility but don't do it here.

Over time more and more minorities have become involved in the environmental movement and many but certainly not all environmental groups have tried to focus on reducing pollution where ever it may be released.

So a fair assessment of Van Jones's quote would be that it is certainly literally true. It is largely true in the first part, and in the past was more true in the second part than it is now.

Exhibit B: A CD entitled “Wartimes: Reports from the Opposition,” produced by the Ella Baker Center. Mumia Abu-Jamal delivers the introduction and Van Jones begins speaking around 3:50 of this amalgam of excerpts from the CD.

Jones calls for: “The end of the occupation. The right of return of the Palestinian people. These are critical dividing lines in human rights. We have to be here. No American would put up with an Israeli-style occupation of their hometown for 53 days let alone 54 years. US tax dollars are funding violence against people of color inside the US borders and outside the US borders.”

Now this quote is indeed true. And perhaps the most telling example of racism on the part of Peretz. Americans have proven time and time that they would not tolerate occupation. And, indeed when the traitorous Southern states were occupied at the end of the civil war they turned immediately to a coordinated campaign of terrorism that continued well into the middle of the last century and involved the highest members the state governments of these states. Further the terrorism continued for generations after the occupation ended.

Not only would Americans not submit to occupation. The continued defense of the confederate flag by leading politicians to this day is a refusal to condemn the leaders of the Confederacy and Southern states for their campaign of terrorism. It is a refusal to count the decades of terrorism as a factor that would deny legitimacy to the celebration of those leaders who were not only traitors to their country but also ruthless terrorists as well.

While this quote is not pretty. It does point to a central truth that Americans oppose occupation more than they do terrorism or torture. If they were in the place of the Palestinians the treatment of African Americans suggest that it is very likely that Americans would turn as many Southerners did at the end formal hostilities, to terrorism immediately and without compunction.

This is not a justification of terrorism or in any way a justification of any actions by the Palestinians. But rather it shows a very real discrepancy between what Americans say about the legitimacy of terrorism, and what historically they themselves have done and still largely refuse to completely condemn.

This quote may be ugly but it is of great importance to the understanding of America's possible future actions in the Middle East. While for a generation shared interest and strong emotional ties to Israel have supported on American narrative regarding the justification of terrorism in response to occupation. There is another narrative that is just as intrinsic to American history.

When Israeli partisans speak of another 40 years of occupation and of taking unilateral actions such as an attack on Iran that could have devastating consequences to US interest in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and could lead to massive casualties amongst the thousands of American troops in the region. Israeli partisans are foolish to ignore this alternate American position on the use of terrorism to resist occupation.

If Israels actions endanger the United States' interest in the Middle East, lead to large American causalities, or angers the American public the Palestinians could quickly become heroic freedom fighters and Israel could become the corrupt, evil occupier.

Exhibit C: Van Jones delivers the keynote address at Powershift ‘09

Jones: "What about our immigrant sisters and brothers? What about people who've come here from all around the world who we're willing to have out in the field with poison being sprayed on them because we have the wrong agricultural system, and then we're willing to poison them and poison the earth to put food on our table but we don't want to give them rights and we don't want to give them dignity and we don't want to give them respect. We need to get down on our knees and thank these Native American communities but also the Latino community, Asian community and every other community that's willing to come here and help is out because we obviously need some help. We need some wisdom from some place else because what we've come up with where don't make no sense at all. ...

"This movement is deeper than a solar panel! Deeper than a solar panel! Don't stop there! Don't stop there! We're gonna change the whole system! We're gonna change the whole thing! [...] And our Native American sisters and brothers who were pushed and bullied and mistreated and shoved into all the land we didn't want, where it was all hot and windy. Well, guess what? Renewable energy? Guess what, solar industry? Guess what wind industry? They now own and control 80 percent of the renewable energy resources. No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! Give them the dignity. Give them the respect that they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt.”

Now no part of this quote is untrue in the slightest. The agricultural system in the United States is perhaps the least free market in the United States. The government has for decades favored large industrial farming even though it is often less efficient and productive than small labour intensive farming. Large scale industrial farming is not only funded by government subsidies, but also has highly favorable labour and environmental standards unavailable to any other industry. And, yes agricultural labourers sprayed with poisons that would not be permitted in any other industry.

And yes we did steal the land from the Native Americans. We actively obliterated their culture. And did force them on unproductive agricultural land. Every word of this quote is literally true and an accurate portrayal of historic events as they indeed happened.

In the end two of the quotes were completely true, even if they were ugly and outside the main stream of American discourse. One of the statements was literally true, though somewhat inaccurate in its portrayal of white environmentalist.

It is telling that Peretz could have mentioned Van Jones association with the clearly false idea of a 9-11 conspiracy. Yet he did not do so. The result is that this article can be read in no other way but as supporting a racist discrimination against minority Americans. If minority Americans say true things that are uncomfortable to white people it is not only ok to treat them in the most disrespectful manner, but it would be unethical for them to serve in government.

However, if minorities are offended by true statements by white authors than it is vile political correctness. Van Johnson may have deserved to lose his job. But to say that the justification of his losing his job was being a black man telling the truth is one of the vilest promotion of racism that I have recently read.