In Ayn Rand's article on racism it was obvious that she held hatred and malice towards the use of racism in our society. She makes it seem in her article that she is fighting for the greater good of all people and that the racist boundaries need to be cut so that all can live together, but that is just a cover-up. She actually supports the segregation of the races, calling it individualism and saying that you can't judge a race a whole, because it is only a select few that are actually worthy, while the rest don't have to the right to coexist in a culminated society. This point is distinctly made clear to us, when she says that she is against the civil rights act, which was a corner stone for the civil rights movement, taking away states right to declare “separate but equal” and allowing for a assimilation in schools, work places, and the overall public. Rand quotes, “'If two men, one negro and one white, are equally qualified for a job, hire the Negro'...It does not merely demand special privileges on racial grounds--it demands that white men be penalized for the sins of their ancestors.” (N.Y Time, August, 133 Rand) This lest us know that she is in favor of whites and that she hates that the “Negros” are taking away jobs that supposedly have equal chances for all to get in. Throughout most of the article you get the idea that she is against the segregation of the races, but only in the last couple pages do you see she real point of view. She is emphasizing the fact the the Civil Rights Bill is taking away from peoples right to private property, by saying that it is discrimination not to assimilate together the two races. But she is trying prove the folly, by saying that even though it may me a racist claim, the individual people still hold their rights to private property and the government should not be able to take that away.
I believe the the opinion that Ayn Rand is trying to make in this article is very flawed. She is saying that people need to be judged as individuals and shouldn't be judged by the acts of their race, but at the same time she is only critically judging how the “Negroes” are affecting the rights and opportunities of the White people and choosing to remain silent about just how unfair and biased the “separate but equal” society was. Hypocritically Rand states that “'Racial discrimination, imposed and enforced by law, is so blatantly inexcusable an infringement of individual rights that the racist statutes of the south should have been declared unconstitutional long ago,” (131) but at the same time is arguing against the governments right to eliminate the discrimination and segregation that is causing inequality throughout the country. She is saying that the the states have no right the go against what is considered discriminate, but then she says that the government has no right to might things right again. Rand's argument seems very focused upon making people think that she is against discrimination and segregation to such an extent that it creates holes and contraindications throughout what she is saying. Even her use of the word “Negro,” a derogatory term for the African American people, is contradicting the idea she wants people to perceive, that she supports anti-segregation. The argument that she puts up is just so flawed and blatantly against equal rights, that it shouldn't even exist. She is secretly showing her support for a position that goes against all the ideals that our society disagrees with. I think that this is a very disappointing way of doing things, since you have to essentially trick your reader in order for them to agree with your opinion. It is as if she doesn't have influential capability to convince people otherwise, which makes her seem very shallow and desperate. I don't agree with the author point of view because I think she is only using racism as as wordplay to further her own goals and opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment