Recently the NAACP of Missouri condemned the actions of a Rodeo Clown who wore a “President mask” of President Obama and then asked the crowd if they would like to see the President run over by a bull. The NAACP didn’t just condemn this as a tasteless act against President Obama, they declared it, “a hate crime”.
“I think a hate crime occurs when you use a person’s race to depict who they are and to make degrading comments, gestures, et cetera, against them,” said the Missouri NAACP President Mary Ratliff.
The clown didn’t say anything racist, he only wore a President mask. Haven’t these guys ever seen Point Break? The NAACP themselves are the ones being the racist here. And mandatory sensitivity training? You might as well come right out and say, “Thought Police”.
It’s one thing to condemn blatant racism. But assuming racism simply because a mask correctly portrays the visage of the President? If the clown had worn a George W. Bush mask, or a Reagan mask, would the NAACP be condemning anti-white racism on the part of the clown for simply wearing the mask? I don’t think so.
I don’t like to use the term race because for every trait of human variation – from the amount of melanin in skin to the amount of curl in hair or the color of a retina – you can find some family, some individual somewhere on earth with features that are on average right in-between, so that you can’t draw a line and say, “This is the white race,” or, “This is the black race”, etc. Ultimately there are no races, there is simply the human race.
Many of us on the Right tend to think in such terms automatically, despite the Progressive media effort to portray conservatives as being racists. I do not know the content of the Missouri mandated sensitivity training, however most sensitivity training addressing racism is usually itself based in racist terms that define a true absence of racism as actually being racism itself. For example, there are the racial definitions found on the University of Colorado’s Student Affairs website. (Note: since the time of writing UC has removed the definitions. You can still find some of them at Oberlin College’s Multicultural Resource Center.) The wording is extremely common at many education and government sites providing official definitions for racism (just google or bing a few of the phrases).
Some of the definitions are:
Passive racism: Beliefs, attitudes, and actions that contribute to the maintenance of racism, without openly advocating violence or oppression. The conscious and unconscious maintenance of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that supports the system of racism, racial prejudice, and racial dominance.
Cultural racism (racism at the cultural level): Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label People of Color as “other,” different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as the great writers or composers.
White privilege: A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by white persons beyond the common advantage of all others; an exemption in many particular cases from certain burdens or liabilities; A privileged position; the possession of an advantage white persons enjoy over non–white persons.
Horizontal racism: The result of people of targeted racial groups believing, acting on, or enforcing the dominant (White) system of racial discrimination and oppression. Horizontal racism can occur between members of the same racial group (an Asian person telling another Asian wearing a sari to “dress like an American”; a Latino believing that the most competent administrators or leaders are white, Native Americans feeling that they cannot be as intelligent as Whites, Asians believing that racism is the result of People of Color not being to raise themselves “by their own bootstraps.”
Did you catch that? These common definitions say that simply happening to have very little melanin in one’s skin unconsciously contributes towards maintaining a system of white racial dominance. In other words – according to these definitions – to be “white” is to be “racist”.
Furthermore, planning for the future, being opposed to socialism and even just speaking proper English are defined as acts of “racism”. So to have traditional American values – individual liberty, classical education and economic freedom – is to be racist.
This is an attack, by way of slander, on the very principles that our nation was founded on. Shortly after our colonies experienced the American Revolution, the French were having their own socialist revolution based on collectivism. The fruit of our American Revolution was ultimately the most personal liberty and the highest standard of living for the most people – regardless of individual gender, creed or color – of any nation in the history of the world. The fruit of the French Revolution was rivers of blood emanating from Madam Guillotine in Paris, and the leaders of the Revolution themselves eventually lost their heads. France has gone through multiple governments and Constitutions since that time.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed…
In contrast, the French Revolution was based on schools of thought that ultimately coalesced into Humanism and Marxism. Contrast the text from the American Declaration of Independence above to it’s counterpart in the French Constitution of 1793.
The aim of society is the general welfare. Government is instituted to guarantee man the enjoyment of his natural and inalienable rights. These rights are equality, liberty, security, and property.
Here is how De Tocqueville characterized the difference between the two philosophies:
Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
So the American Founding Fathers defined “equality” as equal opportunity and equal treatment under law. The French and later Russian revolutions defined equality as equal social and economic outcomes which cannot be obtained aside from government control of individual’s lives and confiscation of personal property.
The equality of restraint in Socialism expresses itself in some of the arbitrary divisions which are taught in most sensitivity training. “Classes” of people are arbitrarily defined and then pitted agasint one another with the goal of equalizing outcomes. Members of some “classes”, regardless of individual economic income or condition, are declared as a group to be “opressors” or “haves” simply because of some trait like a lack of melanin. Members of other “classes” are likewise declared as a group to be “opressed” or “have nots”. If someone is a member of an “oppressed class” they receive differential treatment, even though differetial treatment is exactly what the Left claims to be trying to remedy.
It’s bad when arbitrary “classes” are defined based on a known trait such as skin color or biological gender. It’s even worse when the “classes” are defined based on things that are matters of personal choice. A person’s gender can be clearly determined by a simple DNA test, even if they are intersexed. And a person’s general family can be determined genetically as well. These qualities are what a person “is”. But most sensitivity training would extend differential treatment to mattters of personal choice and positions of conscience. For example, the State of California just passed a law allowing children as young as kindergarten (K-12) to declare a “gender identity” different from what they actually are. Should a 14 year old girl be made to shower after a volleyball game with a boy that has male genitals but “identifies” with being a girl? In another example, in Washington State a florist is being sued because her Christian beliefs preclude her from knowingly selling flowers in support of a homosexual marriage.
The same University of Colorado website mentioned earlier also contains the following definitions, related to gender.
Sexism: A set of preconceived assumptions about the ‘proper’ roles, attitudes, and characteristics (especially physical) that men and women should have, typically working to the advantage of men over women; for example, the assumption that ‘a woman’s place is in the home’, or that men are ‘naturally aggressive’. Sexism can be identified by behaviour, speech, and the written word, and is criticized most strongly by feminists
Gender Expression: How one chooses to express one’s gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyle, voice, body characteristics, etc
Gender Identity: The gender with which a person identifies (i.e, whether one perceives oneself to be a man, a woman, or describes oneself in some less conventional way)…
Personally, I identify people based on thier biological gender even if they say they’ve adopted a different gender. I refer to Chastity Bono as a “she” rather than a “he”. According to the definitions above, I am sexist for doing so even though my convictions regarding gender come from my Judeo Christian heritage and the Bible (Genesis 1:27 NASB, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”)
What the Left is doing in mandating personal thinking – not simply condemning racism when it actually occurs, but assuming it and mandating Progressive re-education – is in principle the exact same thing that the Anglican Church did when it was by law the only church in England and the Catholic church did when it was the legal church of Spain. It’s a shift backwards from Constitutional Republic to the Divine right of kings where the State assumes the role of declaring what personal thoughts are acceptable.
Indeed the State must assume all powers if social and economic outcomes are to be made equal. Sadly, just as monarchical governments generally lead to a marjority of citizens being low income earners under a small ultra-rich set of lords, so socialist governments invariably lead to a majority of citizens being low income earners under a small ultra-rich set of social planners (usually with town-houses in Paris or personal “dachas” outside Moscow). The only exception to this is socialist governments which have an unusual source of wealth (Norway’s oil) or governments which are squandering the still remaining fruits of past economic freedom and fiscal restraint (the first few years of the European Union).
Getting back to the rodeo clown and the Obama mask, in the U.S. the current trend towards government at all levels incorrectly adopting socialist language around racism and mandating sensitivity training is nothing less than a Progressive attempt to enforce a world-view which is clearly a respect towards religion. You can’t control people economically and socially without trying to control their thoughts, which means favoring one world view over another. With actions like these on the part of Progressives it has reached the point of being a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
What we’re seeing amounts to legislating an official religious national church of Secular Humanism, based on blind faith in Metaphysical Naturalism.