Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Racism’ Category

The downfall of the city of Detroit over the last 50 years has been the subject of much discussion.  For example there was the time Stephen Crowder did a drive through of Detroit to document that much of the city is in a shockingly run down condition –

Here is my response to someone online who was recently trying to imply that the destruction in some inner-cities such as Detroit has been the result of racial inferiority.

All sorts of folks with all sorts of features are involved with all sorts of cultures. Drawing a line around skin color is an unscientific way to define a “race” because:

1) For ever variation of human feature you will find some individual, some family, who is exactly in-between so that you may never draw a line and say, “here is where the ‘x’ race begins”, or, “here is where the ‘y’ race ends, etc.

2) Every person is the result of endless migrations by endless families across the earth. For example, the average person from Latin America has ancestors from American first nations, from Africa, from Spain, and through Spain from Italy (Romans), Arabia (Moors) and even Northern Europe (Goths). How could anyone begin to classify such a person as being a separate “race”? Every group of people on earth has a similarly intertwined history. My family is from middle England so I have Irish, Scottish, Britain, Scandinavian, Norman and French. And that’s just on my Father’s side (which also includes, more recently, Montana Niitsitapi “Blackfoot” Indian, which flows through my very European looking veins).

3) Genetic science has recently proven the existence of a progenitor “Mitochondrial Eve” from whom all people are descended. Even science backs up the idea that we are all simply human beings.

4) Drawing a line around skin color would be like drawing a line around height. Imagine saying that, “from now on everyone who is 5’7″ to 5’8″ is a separate race – the Mid-Heighters!” Ridiculous. It is no less ridiculous to insist that someone is a separate race because of iris color, shoe size, double-jointedness or whatever their melanin happens to be.

I believe this is a solid response to racism.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Epilepsy and Melanin

I had a rare form of epilepsy when I was in grade school and was teased endlessly and mercilessly. I was physically attacked on many occasions. I have not come to see myself as victimized in the long term by this. There is no stigma to being me. What I have come to understand is that (this is a wild ballpark range) 1 in 10 people are the very center of a behind, and they will be mean to just about everybody because that’s how they’re hard-wired.  Any excuse will do for them.

Mild epilepsy? Check. Happening to have lots of melanin? Check. Being from Poland – a noble country with noble, beautiful folks? Check. Wearing the wrong socks? Check.

It says nothing about the person being attacked. It says everything about the person doing the attacking being a jerk.

So?

I ran into them all the time in grade school. I run into some now, although I run in pretty respectful circles these days, by choice.

If I moved to or had been born in a nation like Uganda I would have to get used to people “profiling” me because of the amount of melanin I have. People have preconceived notions about minorities like me there. Those notions are based in a large part on the general behavior resulting from culture of those in that nation who have very little melanin. Even the police would treat me differently based on their general experiences. That’s not a bad thing, they want to get home at night safe to their families, just as policemen in the U.S. want to get home at night safe to their families.

I wouldn’t blame the police. If anything I would blame those who happen to be like me and would politely call them to high standards of behavior. I would call them to a culture of hard work, honesty, family, etc. That wouldn’t be racist of me, it would be a good thing.

That’s the story with epilepsy and melanin.

Hebrews 12:15
See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled

Read Full Post »

An article on The Root last year accused the National Anthem of being racist based on it’s mention of slavery in the third stanza.

“…And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave…”

Key was saying that the blood of all the former slaves and “hirelings” on the battlefield will wash away the pollution of the British invaders. With Key still bitter that some black soldiers got the best of him a few weeks earlier, “The Star-Spangled Banner” is as much a patriotic song as it is a diss track to black people who had the audacity to fight for their freedom.

The article is not entirely correct. Sadly people didn’t give much account to slaves in those times, at least in the South. What Scott Key was writing about was the common British practice of using their own chattel slaves, and foreigners apprehended & pressed into service, as well as mercenaries, on their sailing ships. He was contrasting the ineffectiveness of hired and captive military forces compared to a largely free and volunteer force.

Britain didn’t free it’s slaves until a couple decades after the War. They freed their slaves a few decades sooner than most of the European powers in part because frankly as a shipping nation they were still able to trade in goods produced by slaves owned by other European nations, even though slavery was bad economically for both the slave and the master.

The reason the West was the first to end slavery in 5,000 years of recorded history was directly due to the Judeo Christian world view of individuals as having rights to life, liberty and property (which British common law scholars and the Founders directly attributed to Genesis 1:28, which requires all three).

Please watch the film Amazing Grace sometime if you haven’t already.

I’ve read the book The Internal Enemy by Alan Taylor, an example of the Howard Zinn type of thinking upon which the Root author was basing many of his conclusions. The truth is that three-quarters of the Founders opposed slavery and put into the Declaration and Constitution in seed form the principles of abolition, as the great Frederick Douglass came to realize later in life.

The much criticized “three-fifths” compromise fully recognized the personhood of the slaves, and the reason it lessened their representation by their oppressors in Congress was specifically to weaken their oppressors. The slave states wanted to consider slaves property in terms of being, but persons in terms of representation. The free state legislators countered that if that was the case they would could chairs, tables and horses, etc. The three-fifths compromise fully acknowledged the slaves humanity, while weakening their oppressor’s power legislatively.

Later our nation fought a great and bloody civil war to end slavery, the only nation to do so. And Republicans again fought and won in the Civil Rights struggles of the 50’s and 60’s before LBJ, tragically, interpreted Titles II and VII of the CRA 1964 to mean racist quotas and differential treatment based on skin color. The Democrats are still the side of racism, still the side of division based on skin color.

No, this is a great nation.  We can be proud to sing our National Anthem.

The music is incredibly hoakey but the words to the poem by Richard Riddle are 100% spot on:

There is no racism in the Star Spangled Banner

Read Full Post »

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.

In fact the Missouri State Fair Commission has now mandated sensitivity training for the Missouri Rodeo Cowboy Association if they want to participate in the State Fair.

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.

Indisputably, the American Revolution was based on Judeo Christian values.  You can read them in the Declaration of Independence.

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.

Read Full Post »