Slate goes low, attacks Vance's wife with race-based insult
A writer at Slate implied that the wife of Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance was a traitor to her race for support her husband's campaign. The bizarre attack was written by Scaachi Koul and was immediately excoriated by many on the right. Koul sarcastically mocked an article saying Usha Vance's motivations were largely unknown because she's so private. Koul accused Vance of being motivated by seeking protection from her husband by abandoning her racial loyalty. Usha Vance was born in San Diego to immigrant parents from India. Vance wanted to stand apart politically from her husband, she’s certainly free to do so. But the reality is that she doesn’t, and likely won’t. There’s no greater protection in the world than marriage to a white man with an education, money, and political power. Even as Vance herself is highly educated and well connected, it’s nothing compared to what her husband carries into the world. This is the kind of security women have sought for generations—in fact, for a long time, it was the only protection women could access. Koul also excoriated the support some Indian-Americans had expressed for Republican values. "We’re the good brown people, the ones you don’t need to be afraid of. In an attempt to keep our ears above racist waters, South Asians have sometimes associated with our own oppressors," she wrote. “Her allegiances are not to her race, her gender, the community she was born into," Koul added elsewhere. "They’re to her husband, and that’s an agreement women have been making since the advent of the marriage license.” Reactions were not friendly. "As clear an example as any that the logical extreme of racial and gender wokeness is racism and sexism," replied Renu Mukherjee of the Manhattan Institute. "She’s . . . supposed to be loyal to her race? Some details on what that would entail, please?" responded Ramesh Ponnuru in National Review. "I simply cannot comprehend thinking that one’s sex or ethic background are your two defining characteristics that define all of your choices. Bizarre idea," read another response. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
A writer at Slate implied that the wife of Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance was a traitor to her race for support her husband's campaign.
The bizarre attack was written by Scaachi Koul and was immediately excoriated by many on the right. Koul sarcastically mocked an article saying Usha Vance's motivations were largely unknown because she's so private.
Koul accused Vance of being motivated by seeking protection from her husband by abandoning her racial loyalty. Usha Vance was born in San Diego to immigrant parents from India.
Vance wanted to stand apart politically from her husband, she’s certainly free to do so. But the reality is that she doesn’t, and likely won’t. There’s no greater protection in the world than marriage to a white man with an education, money, and political power. Even as Vance herself is highly educated and well connected, it’s nothing compared to what her husband carries into the world. This is the kind of security women have sought for generations—in fact, for a long time, it was the only protection women could access.
Koul also excoriated the support some Indian-Americans had expressed for Republican values.
"We’re the good brown people, the ones you don’t need to be afraid of. In an attempt to keep our ears above racist waters, South Asians have sometimes associated with our own oppressors," she wrote.
“Her allegiances are not to her race, her gender, the community she was born into," Koul added elsewhere. "They’re to her husband, and that’s an agreement women have been making since the advent of the marriage license.”
Reactions were not friendly.
"As clear an example as any that the logical extreme of racial and gender wokeness is racism and sexism," replied Renu Mukherjee of the Manhattan Institute.
"She’s . . . supposed to be loyal to her race? Some details on what that would entail, please?" responded Ramesh Ponnuru in National Review.
"I simply cannot comprehend thinking that one’s sex or ethic background are your two defining characteristics that define all of your choices. Bizarre idea," read another response.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Originally Published at Daily Wire, World Net Daily, or The Blaze
What's Your Reaction?
