Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas has once again drawn attention for a racially charged tirade that says more about progressive obsessions than about reality.
During a House Oversight hearing on the Smithsonian, Crockett veered into an odd commentary on international soccer, appearing to claim that global support in last years World Cup final was driven by racial politics rather than sportsmanship or merit. According to RedState, she suggested that much of the world was cheering for Spain over Argentina because of Argentinas alleged racist history, an assertion that even the witness she was questioning promptly dismissed, explaining that fans backed Spain because it was simply the better team.
The notion that ordinary people across the globe are constantly filtering a soccer match through a racial lens reflects a worldview common on the left but far removed from how most people actually live their lives.
Crocketts argument was especially jarring given her simultaneous outrage over colonizers, a term she deployed without apparent irony despite Spains extensive colonial history in the Americas. If colonialism is the unforgivable original sin, it is difficult to see how Spain becomes the morally superior choice in her own framework. Yet the congresswoman did not stop there, later amplifying her rhetoric in a clip she proudly shared on social media. "It's racist," she declared. "It's just racist, racist, racist."
In the video, Crockett escalated her claims, accusing federal authorities of targeting the wrong people in immigration enforcement. "Let me be clear. The people that were here are the indigenous folk. And you know who ICE has been rounding up? They've been rounding up indigenous people. The people that originally came. Not the colonizers! But the original people. So what this is about is whiteness!" she insisted. The sweeping allegation that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is systematically rounding up indigenous people, rather than enforcing immigration law against those who violate it, is a serious charge offered without serious evidence.
Her framing also collapses under basic scrutiny. Human history is a story of migration; everyones ancestors came from somewhere else, including those now described as Native Americans, who themselves displaced earlier populations over time. If indigenous is defined as those who have lived in a place the longest in recorded history, then yes, Native American tribes fit that description within the United States, but that does not mean ICE is deporting them en massenor is it clear to what country such citizens would even be removed.
Crocketts rhetoric blurs the line between American Indians and foreign nationals entering illegally from south of the border, as though all are part of a single, undifferentiated class of original people.
If she is referring to migrants from Latin America, they are not indigenous to the United States in any legal or historical sense. Many are, in fact, descendants of the very Spanish colonizers she condemns, which by her own logic would place them on the colonizer side of her moral ledger. Her language about colonizers and whiteness thus becomes not only inflammatory but incoherent, reducing complex histories and legal realities to a crude morality play. The implication that being white is synonymous with being a colonizer is both historically inaccurate and morally corrosive, especially when no one alive today participated in the colonial enterprises of centuries past.
The broader problem is the lefts fixation on colonialism as a catch-all indictment of Western civilization, while ignoring that virtually every region on earth has a history of conquest, settlement, and colonizing by one group over another. If every people with a conquering ancestor is permanently tainted, then nearly the entire human race stands condemned, an absurd result that exposes the emptiness of this ideological framework. Yet such rhetoric remains fashionable in progressive circles because it provides a convenient cudgel against the West, against the United States, and against anyone who does not fit the preferred narrative of victimhood and oppression.
For a member of Congress, this is more than a matter of overheated language; it reflects misplaced priorities. Crocketts actual responsibility is to safeguard the interests of American citizens, which includes securing the border and upholding immigration law, not demonizing law enforcement and dividing the country along racial lines.
When she chooses to spew this divisive invective, as critics have noted, she signals to voters that ideological grandstanding matters more to her than public safety, national sovereignty, or equal treatment under the law. If she finds herself out of office after this term, she may discover that Americans are less interested in endless lectures about whiteness and colonizers than in representatives who take their constitutional duties seriously.
Login