Victor Davis Hanson Private Papers

The Weariness of the Whiners

by Victor Davis Hanson // PJ Media

Photo via PJ Media

Photo via PJ Media

Brandon Marshall, the New York Jets wide receiver and occasional sports commentator, charges that the National Football League is racist [1]. He alleges that the league favors white players over black athletes like him, especially white marquee quarterbacks.

Aside from the fact that Marshall recently signed a three-year contract for $27 million — and, for example, African-American lineman Marcell Dareus just concluded a contract extension with the Buffalo Bills for six years at $100 million — examine Marshall’s whimper in light of the demography of the National Football League.

Currently, African-Americans comprise about 12% of the population. Yet they make up about 67% of the current meritocratic, but allegedly racist NFL roster. In the quota parlance of affirmative action engineering, they are “overrepresented” in one of America’s most prestigious and compensated industries at over five times their percentages in the general population. Nor are blacks just the purported grunts on the battlefield of the league; they make up 16% of the head coaches and 24% of the league’s general managers.

The NFL may be exempt from the long arm of the Obama administration’s tenets of proportional representation or disparate impact. Or it could be insensitive to the participation rates of Asians and Latinos. Or it may not be using outreach to recruit whites in commensurate numbers to those of the general population. Whatever — but it is hard to figure out how an African-American multimillionaire (e.g., $9 million per annum in compensation) could complain that being black proves a burden in the present-day NFL. Perhaps Marshall might have been paid $10 million per year?

His writ is about as absurd as empathizing with Oprah because she once alleged that a white clerk at the zillionaire Swiss Trois Pommes boutique neither immediately acknowledged her celebrity status nor showed her quickly enough a $38,000 Tom Ford crocodile-skin purse on the shelf. Hence was born “handbag racism.” [2]

Univision newsman Jorge Ramos recently disrupted a Donald Trump news conference to recite yet another litany of supposedly ethnically insensitive attitudes shown toward Latinos who enter the U.S. illegally. Ramos has crafted a lucrative career by blurring the line between journalist and pundit activist, and by damning U.S. immigration law and the unfairness and inhospitality of the United States toward illegal immigrants. Note that naturalized citizen Ramos left Mexico to immigrate to America, ostensibly because what he routinely can now say in the United States would have landed him in jail in Mexico — in the manner that should Americans enter Mexico illegally in the way Mexicans cross the border into the U.S., they would be jailed, then summarily deported at best and at worst serve prison time for a variety of crimes, among which spelled out in the Mexican Constitution would be altering the racial essence of Mexican demography.

Ramos has parlayed his carping at the perceived unfairness of his adopted country into becoming the highest paid journalist in the world at a reported $75 million a year, paid out by the Spanish-language television corporation owned by a non-Latino Los Angeles billionaire. Again, the United States may be many things, but one thing it is not is unfair or insensitive to either the whining Ramos in his role as a naturalized Mexican-American activist or to one-tenth of Mexico’s population that have chosen to flee Mexico and to enter and reside in the United States illegally.

The cult of the whining victim is now ubiquitous. Two high-school football players in Texas, angry that their team is losing and galvanized by their whining coach, decide to take out a referee and smash him with two cowardly hits [3]. The reason? They claim the flattened ref got what he deserved — because of course he was a racist. The Marine Corps has discovered, as Nature might have advised it, that male ground troops on average perform more muscularly and effectively in rough combat-simulated training than do women. They apparently prove stronger, more combative, blood-thirsty, and aggressive, and fight with greater stamina. One reaction is not to accept the data, but, of course, by whining how the data has been improperly — and no doubt — socially constructed in sexist fashion [4], or is irrelevant altogether, maybe the standards can be lowered a bit.

In the logic of whining, Michael Brown did not commit a felony or two in the last minutes of his life, from strong-armed robbery to assaulting a police officer, but was instead begging for his life with “hands up” and shouting “don’t shoot.” There is less cause and effect anymore, only someone who must be excused from responsibility and culpability by his own claims on victimhood.

The 21st century has become a cowardly era in which we point to collective race, class, or gender rather than own up to our record of behavior and performance when our exalted expectations are not met. Or is it worse than that? Does a Brandon Marshall count on making unsubstantiated charges of racism in hopes of preemptory careerist advantage: one must prove he is not a racist in the future by offering beneficia in the present?

The culprits are not just our obsessions with race, class, and gender, or the careerist aspirations of elites. We also live in the most affluent and leisured era in the history of Western civilization. But given human nature, our bounty has not given us pause for appreciation, but rather increased our appetites in geometric fashion. The more we have, the more we think we deserve — or else. In an affluent society, society can afford now to have no losers. There is enough stuff and praise to be shared by all. In T-ball everyone is a winner; so is today’s student who feels A’s are his birthright. The poor man in the inner city has more computing power in his palm with an Apple smartphone than did the billionaire twenty years ago in his study — but, of course, not as versatile a phone perhaps as that of today’s billionaire, and thus he can legitimately whine that life is not fair due to the machinations of someone else.

The bane of our age is not poverty but parity, or rather the perceived absence of a state-mandated equality of result. It no long matters how much one has, much less in comparison to those abroad or to Americans of our past. The rub is whether someone has something more or better than your own — and why and how that can still be possible in the American horn of plenty. Given those requisites, whininess is the lubricant of our national machinery.

On the other end of the social scale is the whining of the established elite, who bitch that the public has forgotten that they must be exempt to cross-examination and therefore must remind us of that by perpetual whining. The Obama administration mastered this natural trait of privileged scapegoating. For the first six years of Obama’s administration, all supposed achievement was Obama’s; every confirmed failure was the legacy of Emmanuel Goldstein, aka ex-President George W. Bush.

So monotonously expressed was Obama’s whine that we came to believe that Iraq was tumultuous rather than quiet and at peace when he came to office [5], that the September 2008 financial crash was exploding on the day of his inauguration rather than four months old [6], contained and addressed, that racial relations were improving rather serving up Fergusons and Baltimores, and that the Middle East and Russia were rather stable rather than imploding from Syria and Yemen to the Crimea and Ukraine. Obama never set a deadline with Syria, much less ignored it. The UN alone did that, not he.

Obama’s doppelganger is Hillary Clinton. Poor Mrs. Clinton. She was misled about her server, or did not want a handful of clumsy duplicative communication devices or did nothing improper or at least nothing illegal, or at least nothing indictable, or at least differently from past secretaries of State, or never sent classified material, or at least never material that was stamped officially confidential. Who then caused this scandal? The New York Times [7], Fox News, the right-wingers, the Republicans, or the Clinton-haters.

Ours is the age of constant whining — and now let me cease whining how wearisome it has all become.

(Artwork by Shutterstock.com [8].)

Article printed from Works and Days: http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/weariness-of-whiners/

URLs in this post:

[1] the National Football League is racist: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/09/11/brandon-marshall-playing-race-card-on-deflategate-when-it-doesnt-apply/

[2] Hence was born “handbag racism.”: http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/08/14/oprah-vu/2/

[3] and smash him with two cowardly hits: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/07/video-working-the-refs-gets-dangerous-in-texas-high-school-football-game/

[4] in sexist fashion: http://freebeacon.com/blog/secretary-of-the-navy-implies-marines-are-dishonest-chauvinists/

[5] when he came to office: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/213924/

[6] rather than four months old: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4

[7] The New York Times: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-surrogates-declare-war-on-the-ny-times/article/2571910?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=55f5b56e04d3015db2000001&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

[8] Shutterstock.com: http://www.shutterstock.com

Copyright © 2015 Works and Days. All rights reserved.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

About Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a professor of Classics Emeritus at California State University, Fresno, and a nationally syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services. He is also the Wayne & Marcia Buske Distinguished Fellow in History, Hillsdale College, where he teaches each fall semester courses in military history and classical culture.

13 Thoughts on “The Weariness of the Whiners

  1. I like it when you whine. Whining becomes you. I am going to start a campaign to gather signatures to force you to whine more. Are you, among your other deficiencies, Whinophobic? I for one want to be the first to whine about your denigration of whiners. I would post this, but I also belong to Procrastinator Pride.

  2. The information about Jorge Ramos’s salary is one of those fake news story items that have recently come to plague the internet, so you might want to revise your article. The source given is a list by a magazine that doesn’t exist and published on one of those fake news story (they call it “satire”) websites. Unfortunately google doesn’t differentiate between fake news and real news in its search results.

    • Though that may be true, does it substantially impact the argument? Whether Mr. Ramos makes $75 million or $1 million, the context of the argument is no less valid. When listing facts and assumptions, we must focus only on those facts that impact the outcome, not on all facts (or falsehoods).

      • It doesn’t affect the argument, but it reduces the credibility of the writer. Bloggers and journalists who propagate false information lose their credibility and I hope that doesn’t happen with VDH whose writing we all respect.

  3. Questioning Conservative on September 14, 2015 at 10:53 am said:

    Before I ask my question (that may or may not be read), let me say that this article is timely, necessary and sums what may be the cause our nation’s collective lack of character.

    My question is regarding Dr. Hanson’s belief that those who govern us should be held responsible and should be questioned by we the public. As I learn more about various presidential administrations it seems that too often the presidents we modern conservative admire most (from both parties, one could say) have acted covertly in a manner that was un-Constitutional and tried to withhold the information from the public. A specific example might be Reagan’s allowing CIA operations in Lebanon and Nicaragua. Reagan and other presidents spurned public debate and questioning of these issues and yet we often hold them up as heroes. How then, do we defend their actions when we agree that the current administration should be questioned and required to work on behalf of the American public? I ask this with the hopes that I might gain some information with which to argue in favor of these men when they are attack by today’s ideological opponents to their memories and beliefs.

  4. This is all the legacy of Socialist agitprop. Socialism was founded on the idea of improving Capitalism. The success of Capitalism in the 19th Century was stunning. But the Socialists thought they could do better and like all arm chair generals they crafted ideas better suited for fantasy novels.

    The failure of Socialism should be the gravestone of the movement. However, it is too easy to second guess a functional society and compare it to a perfect utopia which cannot exist in our lifetime. They will destroy our society if we do not vigorously oppose them.

  5. zygote314 on September 14, 2015 at 3:41 pm said:

    Gosh, your heart just bleeds for poor young Brandon Marshall. I mean, having to endure the daily humiliation of being a fabulously compensated member of the NFL’s pampered first-string elite must be just awful. Can we not empathize with Marshall’s plight as a an NFL superstar? How would we cope knowing that there is no house or car we couldn’t pay cash for, or gorgeous supermodel unwilling to throw herself at our feet? And let us not forget that this insidious discrimination has plagued Marshall all his life: from being placed on a pedestal by his peers and teachers since high school to getting a free ride through college and being forced to take such academically rigorous subjects like ‘Rocks for Jocks.’ Marshall has been beaten down all his life.

    A new film about chess genius Bobby Fischer is to be released soon. Like Marshall, Fischer was gifted and driven to succeed. Despite growing up poor in a single parent household in Brooklyn, New York, and dropping out of high school in the 10th grade, Fischer managed to single handedly defeat the Soviet chess machine and become the 11th World Champion. Both men, however, had a personality disorders that led them to make spitefully ignorant statements and act in the most foolish way imaginable. In Marshall’s case, he seems to believe that racism and oppression exist in the most unlikely of places sans any evidence of course, while Fischer was a virulent anti-Semite (despite having a Jewish mother and probably a Jewish father) who cheered on the September 11th attacks the day after they occurred. He would later die of kidney failure a few years later rather ignobly at an Iceland hospital.

    Why have both of these men in their own respective way turned on the nation that had given them so much ?

  6. Too often the people arguing about inequality and disparate pay are already well compensated. We have the female attorney earning $120K, but they suspect a male attorney might be making $130K and they want the government to even them up. Even worse, the successful multimillionaire minority or email actor or singer who observes that there is a white actor or signer who is even richer and they want “justice”, even though most people who tackle the entertainment industry never prosper, no matter what their gender or ethnicity. As deep throat said, “follow the money” and you’ll understand motivations.

  7. Dan Sullivan on September 15, 2015 at 6:18 am said:

    Never in the history of mankind have so many be given so much for doing so little.

  8. I found a hidden gem in this article ( not the first from Dr. Hanson). I’ve got one of those generation x sons that believes that because we are such a wealthy nation everyone should share in the goodies – health care, housing, college etc. He’s still working on the “working for it” part. Your sentence ” The bane of our age is not poverty but parity, or rather the perceived absence of a state-mandated equality of result.” is an excellent summary of what he seems to be thinking. Thank you.

  9. David Park on September 17, 2015 at 12:29 pm said:

    Let’s clear up one misconception here: when one person doesn’t like another person’s crude loudness, a chip on a shoulder, aggressive threats of violence, whining with lame excuses for failing to take advantage of freely provided opportunities, abject laziness, criminal activity, or lack of simple civility it isn’t racism. It’s simply confounded and well deserved disgust. God or nature gave you the outer covering; you made what’s under it.

  10. Sevan Claig on September 17, 2015 at 5:52 pm said:

    I always like Bill Whittles’ fable (may have come from the Iowa – something blogger first…) which i will try to ge tright in repeating, about the employee approached one morning by his boss who informss he will receive 200k bonus, tax free for doing such a great job. The joy in the man’s heart is uncontrollable. After thinking of paying g his mortgage off setting up a fund for his kid’s college, taking a world adventure, he runs to tell his coworker about his newfound wealth. But the coworker states he recieved, 500k, as did every other employee in the office, including the gal who is always late and he guy who is rude and utterly incompetent.
    Suddenly he is no longer filled with euphoric joy over becoming nearly a quater of a million dollars wealthier in a mere instant, but overcome with anger and seething resentment instead- simply because someone else recieved more.

  11. John the Econ on September 22, 2015 at 9:35 am said:

    I think the problem is that there’s no longer such a thing as “shame” in our culture. With the loss of shame, came the loss of self-awareness. This was a consequence of generations of unprecedented affluence in our society. The things people while about today would have seemed unfathomable to previous generations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation