The folly of playing the race card in SF

Mayor Breed

From yesterday's SF Chronicle:

A group of African American faith leaders, community organizers and civil rights activists gathered Monday to slam members of the Board of Supervisors for their repeated opposition to Mayor London Breed’s policies — casting their dissent as “racist politics” that hurt black people in San Francisco.

The only specific policy issue criticized was a proposal by Supervisor Mar, who is ethnically Chinese and qualifies as a person of color. Mar easily brushed off the accusation, as did Supervisor Walton, the only black supervisor.

Mayor Breed's soundbite in the Chronicle story provided a muddled blanket endorsement of the bogus racism charge:

Part of the frustration is that we’re tired of having people who don’t understand these experiences trying to push policies that are going to impact our community, as if they know what’s best for us,” Breed said. “They don’t even have enough respect for me and my own personal experiences to even have a conversation with me before they propose something that’s going to affect the African American community.”

The implication: Every member of the Board of Supervisors must now clear their policy proposals with Mayor Breed who will presumably vet them to see how they affect the African American community.

Alas, recent San Francisco history is littered with foolish examples of playing the race card. In chronological order:

The "lynching" of Ed Jew? Playing the race card.

Rose Pak plays the race card.

Cindy Wu and "the female point of view."

Identity politics: Still a deadend.

Olague plays the race and gender cards.

Playing the race card in San Francisco.

The absurdity of Identity politics in San Francisco.

Hillary Ronen's PC muddle.

See also Assimilation or separatism in SF?