What Matters?

Here is a thought for the day:

Lives Matter.

If you need to put a color in front of that statement, then you are the racist.

Why do I say that?  Here is the definition of racism: “the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”

That is, identifying by race just plays into the identity politics that are by their very nature racist.  This is true whether we are identifying particular races whose lives do or do not matter, particular races whose businesses we should or should not patronize, particular races who should or should not receive taxpayer money, particular races who should or should not receive special benefits, or any other type of categorization by racial identity.

Identity politics and its accompanying racism is a tool in a game played by ideologues who are seeking nothing more than their own power.  Racial identity as well as other identity groups are nothing more than pawns in their game. 

Watch this game play out in the proposed police reform bills.  The Democrats quashed the Republican bill that had a good chance of bipartisan support and thus a chance to pass into law. Democrats aren’t even interested in debate on the bill.   Instead the Democrats with the support of their usual propaganda machine (mainstream media and entertainment industry) put forward a bill that has little chance of passage. 

Why, you may wonder, would they not want to debate a bill that might pass?  Why propose something that likely will not pass?  The answer is simple.  They care more about keeping the issue alive for their own election purposes than actually enacting the reforms.  The languishing bill allows them to continue to use racial identity politics against their Republican rivals.

Identity politics is strong and getting stronger.  People are fired, ridiculed, attacked for simply questioning its premises, for wanting to treat all citizens equally rather than singling out one group or another for special treatment or for their “collective guilt.”  I’m sure the statement that opens this post (“Lives Matter”) qualifies me for attack by those invested in the identity politics game.

Historically, the Democrat party was once the anti-Black party.  It now claims the title of the pro-Black party, the party that will be the Savior for Blacks in America.  What cloak will they next put on?  The answer is the one that serves them best in their quest for absolute power over all of our lives.

So, I will stand against their attempts to turn me into a racist by buying into their identity games.  I will not prefer one race over another.   I will not make decisions about individuals based upon the color of their skin, whether it is what life I think matters or what business to patronize or to whom I might feel guilty.

As I stated in a recent post (LINK):  

Unless and until we stand up to the game being played out in our capital and on our streets, the war of identity politics can and will only increase, and only to the benefit of those who are using it for their own gain.

Here are two essays worth reading:

Commentary from Harlan Hill in Real Clear Politics, Think the ‘Cancel’ Mobs Can’t Get Any Worse? Think Again  (LINK)

Opinion by Megan McArdle in The Washington Post, Where do we draw the line in tearing down statues?  (LINK)

Identity Politics and Victimhood vs. Liberation and Sovereignty

Black Lives Matter leader and Greater NY BLM Chapter President Hawk Newsome stated, “if this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.” (Video Interview on The Story, June 24, 2020).  And what is it that Mr. Newsome and his BLM want?  At the end of the interview he stated, “I just want Black liberation and Black sovereignty, by any means necessary.”

Let’s think about that.  Liberation is the act of setting someone free.  I think that was celebrated just a few days ago on Juneteenth, the celebration also known as Freedom Day, Jubilee Day, Liberation Day, and Emancipation Day.  Juneteenth celebrates and commemorates African American freedom.

So, to what liberation does he refer?  Perhaps he has liberation confused with some idyllic Utopia where everyone has everything they want, perhaps even without having to work for it, where no one is biased, where everyone has everything that everyone else has, where no one ever has to compete for and sometimes not get the job, or house, or friends, or family, or whatever else that he wants.  Perhaps he refers to that Utopia that we all know can never really exist.

We will come back to these thoughts in a moment, but first let’s look at the definition of his other key word:  sovereignty.  Usually used in referring to a state, country, or similar entity, the word sovereignty means supreme power or authority; the right to be self-governing.  No, the identity group Black is not a self-governing state and if he seeks it to become so then that idea is quite radical and will indeed require burning down our system as well as our country. 

But, perhaps by sovereignty he intends to mean the right of Black individuals to be responsible for themselves, to make their own decisions and chart their own individual courses in life.   That of course requires choices and decisions and in the real world everyone makes some very good decisions but also some very bad ones.  In either case, when an individual governs oneself that individual must be prepared to take the consequences, both good and bad, of those decisions.

And, if that is the sovereignty to which Newsome refers, then Black individuals received that sovereignty along with their emancipation.  If that is BLM’s demand, then BLM already has what it wants.  So, let’s explore why they feel so oppressed that they must protest and riot for “liberation and sovereignty.”

The key here is identity politics.  It does its best to deny Black individuals the freedom to be individuals.  That is its point and how it serves as a tool for those who seek power via division and, in classic socialist tradition, pitting one group against another.  As the Left has fueled the flames of identity politics for the last many years, Blacks have been pushed and cajoled to see themselves not as individuals but as members of a victim group. 

With Blacks as the oppressed, and Whites or the System as the oppressor, the oppressed Blacks are urged to blame the oppressing Whites for everything within their lives that is less than the Utopia of perfection that we all dream of.  Anything less than perfection is not the fault of the oppressed, but of their oppressors.  The Utopian dream would be possible if the oppressed were liberated from their oppressors.  This is the fairy tale of identity politics.

“Systemic Racism” is nothing more than a false narrative that is used to solidify victimhood of all who are deemed members of that identity group known as Black.  It is a byproduct of identity politics – a means of dividing us to further a progressive quest for power.  To proclaim that some sort of systemic racism is the force that keeps Blacks from being liberated and sovereign is simply another way of claiming, underscoring, and maintaining victim status for an identity group.  

Identity politics, not plantation owners, is what now keeps Blacks enslaved.  Group victimhood diminishes self-worth and destroys individuality; with that comes a lack of motivation and a dependence on those who have convinced these “victims” that they cannot live without the assistance of their victim-makers. 

If liberation is necessary, it is not from the “system”, not from “institutionalized racism” but from politicians who push a victim narrative promising to save those victims, while at the same time turn those “victims” into an underclass of dependent voters who will keep their victim-makers in power. 

Yet no one forces Blacks to be identified by a group narrative.  They, like any other individual in this country, have the freedom to create their own narrative, one in which they are free to see themselves not as victims but as individuals who can take responsibility for their own lives and in so doing enjoy the fruits thereof.  They can do this without envy of or hate for or dependence on some other group.  But this requires accepting the fact that the life they create will in all likelihood not be perfect – there is no Utopia.

Truly accepting one’s own liberation and personal sovereignty requires no small amount of courage.  It is easy to sit back, take no risks, and let others create things that you would like, whether that is a physical creation or the fruits of one’s labor, or a state of mind.  It is easy to accept the narrative that you can do no more than be dependent on others for your well-being.  And, when your life is not what you would choose, it is easy to be prompted into a mindset of victimhood. To break free of that mindset takes courage and independence.

This is not to imply that no people have biases or do not act in a way that is or can be perceived as racist.  That, however, does not prove systemic or institutional bias.  There are hundreds if not thousands of anecdotes about a Black person being somehow slighted or treated badly.  Sometimes that is due to racism, sometimes it is not.  There are just as many anecdotes of non-Black and indeed White people being slighted or treated badly.  Sometimes that is because of their color, sometimes it is not.  Some people will choose to see these as the individual occurrences they are; others will choose to see everything through the glasses of racism.

George Floyd’s murder was horrendous.  But what proof do we have that it was racially motivated, that it occurred because he was Black?  How do we know that his accused murderer was not just a cop who was drunk on his own power?  He had, with police union help, been allowed at least 17 prior times to abuse his power; those abuses were not labeled racist.  Perhaps this was just a bad man who felt like killing that day; do we have any proof that the blackness of Floyd’s skin was the reason?  And if we do, how does this horrible murder in any way prove the existence of systemic racism?

Far more realistic than systemic racism is the existence of identity politics and its use by the Left to turn Blacks and others into a dependent sub-class.  Repeated assertions that some specter known as “systemic racism” is to blame are useful to solidify the identity group and hence keep them as a class dependent on those who proclaim with both words and actions that only with their help can the group break free of its dependent status.  Yet, such promises and their accompanying handouts do nothing more than to keep that class dependent. 

It is this political and progressive if not socialist game that threatens the liberty and sovereignty of every individual who accepts as their own the uni-dimensional identity of a group.   The “victims” are nothing more than pawns in that power game.  Their only use to the victim-makers is the color of their skin; their human individuality has no merit and is of little concern to those who are using them as pawns

The system has already worked to grant to those who choose to take it the freedom and the sovereignty Mr. Newsome and BLM demand.  It is identity politics and its accompanying demeaning of the individual that are the threat.  This key tool of the socialist warrior is being wielded well by the Progressive Left who would indeed tear down the system – the very system that has already given BLM what they seek.

So, I would encourage Mr. Newsome and BLM to reevaluate things.  If liberation and sovereignty are what you want, then I suggest that you already have it.  Victimhood and its oppression are just one of many choices available to you.  Do not take the coward’s way forward, blaming others for the imperfections in your lives and life in general.  Within you is what you need -  the courage that it takes to stand up and be responsible for your own lives, to throw off the dependent victimhood identity and choose instead your own individual, multi-dimensional,  and independent narrative.

Different Strokes for Different Folks

Today, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the decision of DHS to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act.  Basically, the majority opinion finds that the DHS reason given for recission was not sufficient.  That reason was that, based upon opinions of the 5^th Circuit and the Attorney General, DACA implemented by the prior administration’s DHS was unlawful.  Those opinions explain that Obama’s DHS overstepped its authority by conferring benefits that were in excess and violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.  

There are essentially 2 parts to DACA – the authorization of benefits to illegals covered under DACA and the Obama DHS decision to at least temporarily not enforce immigration laws as to this group of illegal aliens.  Apparently because the Trump DHS does not address these two parts separately, but instead conflates them together in the reasoning for rescission, the majority finds the decision to rescind the original illegal DACA to be arbitrary and capricious and hence insufficient.  It is, then, insufficient to justify the rescinding of a law on the fact that the law is an illegal exercise by the Obama DHS.

So, as Justice Thomas notes in his dissent, under this decision future administrations can bind their successors “by unlawfully adopting significant legal changes through Executive Branch agency memoranda.” The agency, in this case DHS, must continue to administer an unlawful program from a previous administration.  One administration gets to exceed the law, the second is not allowed to correct that excess.

Two DHS memos.  One creates DACA, essentially amending and altering current law and in contravention of INA and beyond any powers granted to DHS, and thereby provides benefits and stops deportations of a group of illegal aliens.  The second DHS memo rescinds the first based on the fact that the first unlawfully creates benefits and contradicts existing law.  Two memos, both by DHS, one from the Obama administration, the other from the Trump administration.  The first which has been found to be illegal stands, the second is found unlawful. 

It feels like we have entered Alice’s rabbit hole, or perhaps more accurately are living out Orwell’s 1984 – up is down, right is wrong, and 2 + 2 = 5. 

Chief Justice Roberts, in writing the majority opinion, also expresses his concern for the “reliance rights” of DACA individuals.  It seems that in his view the Trump DHS should have considered these reliance interests and held off or delayed the recission or at least instructed immigration agents to “give salient weight to any reliance interest engendered by DACA when exercising individualized enforcement discretion.”  Well, that is simply another way of saying keep the illegal law in place. 

The majority opinion states that “The dissent is correct that DACA was rescinded because of the Attorney General’s illegality determination.”  But, while that determination did not address the option of retaining forbearance or accommodating other reliance interests, the DHS “should have considered those matters but did not.  That failure was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the ADA.”

Justice Thomas, in his dissent, states “Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision.”  Exactly!  Chief Justice Roberts and the majority are allowing their own emotions and the emotions of the vocal pro-DACA demonstrators to color their thinking. 

It is easy to have sympathy if not empathy for children taken at a young age to another country who then discover they are there illegally and essentially have no country to call their home, face the possibility of deportation to a land they don’t even know.  That is a problem.  And that problem is addressed (or not) by our legislative branch. 

The Obama DHS did not have the authority to essentially create new rules to address that problem.  Obama himself admitted that the action was done through DHS because he knew that Congress would not enact it as law.  DACA is illegal.  Its recission will cause heartache.  But its rescission is legally the right thing to do.

In this opinion the Court is essentially making law or perhaps even endorsing illegal law when it is emotionally compelling.   That is not the Court’s role.  That role also does not belong to DHS.  It belongs to the Legislature. 

We expect the Court to be dispassionate and logically look at the law.  But here we have a decision that seems in large part to be based on emotion, on what the court thinks is the right thing to do or what it would do if it had the authority to make law.   When the court so clearly and openly loses its way, America as we know it is in big trouble.

There are many court decisions as well as many laws with which I do not agree.  I used to say “be patient, the system will work” meaning that if the Court went beyond its authority the legislature would hold it in check by amending or writing legislation.  And if the legislature or administrative agencies exceeded their power, the court would hold them in check. 

But, if the Supreme Court cannot follow the rules, if it puts emotion, popular sentiment (mob rule), and politics in the place of dispassionate deliberation, then we no longer have a system to follow or to trust. 

I want to note here that this opinion, with majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions, is 79 pages long.  I obviously cannot do it full justice in this short blog, and I would encourage everyone to read it in its entirety and form their own opinions about it.  But that reading should be done objectively and dispassionately. 

Even if you agree with the outcome, if your heart is with the DACA group, that outcome can and should be achieved through the appropriate processes and not by playing legal mumbo-jumbo games to enforce what should be an illegal action by a government agency.  Allow that once, and you are justifying it again when you may not be so happy with the result.

Peace Requires a New Identity – are we courageous enough to go there?

We cannot have peace until we first dismantle the identity groups that are preventing it.

In the context of a different discussion, Jonathan Sacks writes, “When, though, enemies shake hands, who is now the ‘us’ and who the ‘them’?  Peace involves a profound crisis of identity.  The boundaries of self and other, friend and foe, must be redrawn.”  (Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference, 2002).

If one’s identity is to be the victim of another group, then if the causes of the victimhood are resolved, if one is no longer a victim they have then lost their identity.  The same, in reverse, is true for those holding the victimizer identity.   It logically follows that there must be a “crisis of identity” as the uncertainty of “who am I” unfolds. 

If victimhood via group definition is the only identity that one knows, then how will they reformulate a new identity?  Perhaps the idea that one who identified as the victim of real or perceived white supremacy will now assert their supremacy over that previously victimizing group is not as far fetched as those attacking Terry Crew’s comments would have us believe.  If one’s only identity is the label given them by their group, then how will they know any other sort of identity or behavior?

Here is a personal example.  About 10 years ago the institution at which I taught installed its first female dean.  My feminist colleagues who saw women as victims of male supremacy decided to have a gathering to which no men would be invited.  Rather than simply saying I couldn’t make it, I (perhaps foolishly) chose to stand up and say I believed the whole idea was wrong, that I did not want to do what we women for years had complained about men doing – excluding those of the opposite sex.  The gathering went forward, and from that point on I became somewhat of an outcast by those colleagues:  I did not have the right mindset for redefining the feminist group identity.  I was demanding individual identity and accountability rather than simply assumption of a new group mantle.

The point is that when the end of an identity group conflict makes us ask "who am I?",  we must be brave enough to find our unique and individual identities rather than just redefine our groups and their labels without addressing the hopes, hate, and fears that belong to each group.  If we do not, then the hate and fear is just perpetuated, though redistributed, and the discord continues.

Peace.  If we really want it we must have the courage to break the cycle of identity groups.  The mere existence of one group implies the existence of another - and thus the existence of an "us" and a "them."  

We must have the courage to stand up and say that the only group with which we each will fully identify is the one called humanity.  Beyond that we must be brave enough to say we do not need a group to give us an identity, that we will work against the existence of sub-groups that take away both our humanity and our individuality.  

We must be brave enough to say that we each must and will be defined by our unique individuality.  That individuality is a multifaceted thing that includes aspects of many groups, but in the end is defined by none.

As long as we let groups define and label us we will always have an “us” and a “them.”  When we resolve an issue between identity groups, we must not simply draw new group identity lines.  Rather, we must face the identity crisis that the dismantling of group identities will cause.  We must each be brave enough to accept ourselves and others as the individuals that we and they are.   Only then can we move forward as one united mass of humanity.

“I will not become a racist to prove that I am not one” and other short thoughts on current events

Yesterday I read the story of a police officer comforting a Black 5-year-old who asked if he were going to shoot her.  This anecdote was being used to demonstrate the horror of “institutionalized racism.”  I was horrified – horrified that this child had learned this fear at such a young age.  And who, I ask, likely instilled that fear in her – her parents or other caregivers?

So, I must wonder, can all the blame for hatred go to those whom the victims claim hate them, or might some of it fall on the victims themselves?  For if a child at the tender age of 5 has been taught that police are likely to shoot her, what else has she been taught about those who are not members of her racial victim class?  How much of that is actually true or justifies a fear against a whole group?  With that fear the seeds of hate are also planted. 

And, how can we ever come together and be one nation if one group of us (whether that group is Black, White, or other) is teaching fear and hate rather than love and reconciliation against another group.  No wonder BLM and its partner M4BL (Movement for Black Lives) make demands on those whom they perceive as victimizers rather that reaching out to work with those others together to make a better world.

**

People say they want conversations, but it seems that what that really involves is dueling studies.  That is, each side will have their studies and statistics that “prove” their points and with those in hand seem to close their mind to any real dialog about those studies or diverse views supported by alternate studies. 

One can always find a study or data point to support their position.  Using them as a sort of “in your face” to those with opposing or differing views does nothing to resolve divisions.  What actually might resolve hatred and division is urging others and opening one’s own mind to understand that we are all part of one humanity that can work together to make a better world.  But we will never do that if we focus on our divisions and feel some need to prove that our position is always absolutely right and all others are absolutely wrong.

**

There is a difference between peaceful, lawful protests intended to make a point relevant to policy and urge changes in policies that the demonstrators are against, as opposed to riots, or revolts, or revolutions that simply focus on destruction.  Those who say that all are the same are actually siding with those who favor complete destruction.  

Those who would take away all police power, all lawful authority are in the process of destroying our democracy.  We do not have a first amendment right to riot and destroy other people or their property; it is the duty of our law enforcement and our leaders to protect the citizenry from unlawful acts.  

If we cease to have a safe democratic state that can only lead to having instead a safe authoritarian state.  Such a state would not even allow the peaceful protests that are not only a part of but a necessary piece of our democracy.

**

Let’s say that we: clear the nation of all confederate statues; put a large chunk of money for “reparations” in every Black person’s pocket; make it illegal to use any terms, phrases, or express any feelings or beliefs that the Black protests/demands deem to be racist; defund and dismantle law enforcement; send millions of dollars to Black communities.  Will the rioters be happy then or will they continue to: teach their children to hate, especially those who look different or think differently than do they; blame anything that is not perfect in their lives on a problem with the “system”? 

Racism will only really be resolved when each and every one of us is willing and able to take individual responsibility for our lives and when we hold individuals rather than identity groups accountable for their bad acts.  Only when we are all equally outraged at the unjust treatment or murder of any person of any color will we actually have moved forward. 

**

Identity politics is in large part responsible for bringing us to this point.  For the past 50 years mostly Democrat leaders of areas with large Black populations (especially large cities) have, despite their promises, done little to help raise Black people to a better existence, but have instead used identity politics to convince the Black population of their victim status.  This was useful for those politicians who could then claim that this underclass needed them and hence would demand their votes to keep them in power. 

Their power required this underclass and, in the name of helping our neighbors, they encouraged all of us to help to create it.  We reinforced mantras such as “you are not good enough on your own”; “you can only go so far”; the Whites/rich/republican/[fill in the blank] are out to get you and you must fear them”; and of course “you need the state, things like welfare, to survive because you cannot do it on your own.” 

Messages such as that are far more racist than demanding that Blacks simply be accountable.  Those who listen to those messages will always be victims full of hate at their perceived oppressors and ready to serve as tools for anyone who wants to “revolt” against the “system” usually for their own power, not to help those whom they see as their tools.

**

Gratitude is a key to joy.  Being filled with envy and hate destroys joy.  It also destroys one’s self.  It destroys one’s ability for self-motivation – why be motivated if others are all against you and likely will not let you succeed?  Instead of being the one in charge of one’s own life, falling victim to identity politics allows others to control your life and indeed your very identity. 

**

I am being urged to buy from Black retailers and Black business owners in order to show my solidarity with the “fight against racism.”  Well, to seek out or award someone simply because of their color seems pretty racist to me.  I tend to think the best individual should always win based on skills necessary to the contest, not simply because of a color of skin.  When I want to buy something, I will purchase from the retailer that best suits my needs be that price, quality or variety of products offered, convenience and quality of service, etc.  That retailer may be Black, White, or purple.  I will not become a racist to prove that I am not one.

Co-opting George Floyd – Never let a crisis go to waste.

George Floyd, like so many Blacks and their legitimate grievances before, has become nothing more than a pawn – a tool to be used by others for their own political power agenda.

After my blog post yesterday (LINK)  suggesting more “conversations on race” are not going to change anything and perhaps make things worse, someone asked me “well then, how do we change the system?”  Therein lies a large part of the problem.

I don’t want to, do not think we need to “change the system.”  Improve it, yes – always – but change it? NO.

Change the system to what?  Socialism?  That seems to be the choice of the day.  That would not do anything to address or improve the legitimate grievances of people of color.

And what "system," exactly what aspect of the "system" needs to be changed to such extent that it merits total destruction?

George Floyd was murdered by a police officer.  That officer was arrested and charged with murder.  He will be tried and likely convicted.  Seems to me the system is working.  Yes, Floyd was murdered and that was clearly wrong and a seemingly completely evil act on the part of his murderer.  The system did not kill George Floyd, one man did.  That man will face judgement for his crime.

Not to diminish the horror of Floyd’s murder or the sincere pain it has caused, on the same day he was murdered others across America of all background and color were also murdered.  Some were murdered by friends or family or those of the same race.  Others were murdered by strangers and those of a different race.  Some murders were random; some were personal.  Some may have been committed by individuals wearing uniforms.  The “system” will address these murders too.  There will be investigations, people will be charged and tried.  Our justice system seems to be alive and well.  (Not perfect, there will be errors, but the system is working albeit always open for improvement).

Black Lives Matter demands defunding of the police.  I read this demand as asking for the end of police as we know that term, for if the police are defunded then they will cease to exist.  The BLM petition reads:

Enough is enough. Our pain, our cries, and our need to be seen and heard resonate throughout this entire country. We demand acknowledgment and accountability for the devaluation and dehumanization of Black life at the hands of the police. We call for radical, sustainable solutions that affirm the prosperity of Black lives.

The rhetoric sounds good, but what does it mean, is there really a foundation for this demand, and is it really connected to George Floyd’s death?  Clearly, the pain of Floyd’s death legitimately gives rise to cries of anguish that can and should resonate with us all.  But, the murder by one man who happened to be and should not have been a police officer does not indicate a “devaluation and dehumanization of Black life” at the hands of all police.  That “devaluation and dehumanization” occurred at the hands of one man.  To paint all law enforcement with such an overbroad brush does nothing to improve a system that indeed has allowed a variety of bad actors into its fold.  It simply furthers the hatred toward and implicitly the destruction of the entire system.   This is not going to fix any legitimate grievances that might exist toward that system.

Another “system” that is attacked is the “criminal justice system” which, as the claims go, treats Blacks or people of color differently and worse than Whites.  Clearly, many prisons contain a greater number of people of color.  But it does not necessarily follow from that fact that those people of color are treated less fairly or differently than are Whites.  Life is far more complex than making such a simple jump to such a conclusion.  There are many possible reasons behind the numbers, some of which probably do stem from some sort of unfair or biased treatment but also many others that do not. 

The further implication is that these are “mass incarcerations.”  They are not.  Each was the result of an individual trial that called many “systems” into play.  Not just race, but economics, education, and individual choices are but a few of the many factors that likely affected each of these individual trials.

However, making such simplistic jumps from just one data point – number incarcerated - serves well the purposes of those who do indeed wish to destroy (not simply improve) our systems.  It is a good, strong starting point for fomenting hate from one identity group against another.  That hate does not serve the identity group, but rather the one fomenting the hate, the ones who are not letting this personal crisis go to waste.

Thinking about prison reform, let’s remember that the Left demanded that, told people of color they had to elect them in order to have this problem rectified.  They got the votes but did not make the changes.  It was their hated President Trump who enacted prison reform, something which they fail to note or if they do then they simply argue it was not enough and not soon enough and continue to focus on the problems and destroy the system rather than work toward further improvements to the existing system.

Really the “system” that needs to be changed in the eyes of those who have co-opted Floyd’s murder to their own ends is the system of America itself – its government – its form of Democratic Republic.  Why?  Loss of the freedoms we now hold, loss of the systems that allow us to speak out and to work to improve our society will be destroyed.  That does not help those demanding “change.”  The people that it helps are those who would hold absolute power for themselves.

A former member of Antifa notes that the group uses its anti-fascist name to hide the fact that it is really a conduit for far-Left activism.  This violent group is fighting for Socialism and a part of that fight includes the destruction of America as we know it.  There are other groups and individuals on the far edges of political ideology who believe that America as we know it – the “system” – must be destroyed.  They are more than happy to use moments of racial tension and identity divides to further their cause.  But, be very clear, their cause is not the cause of Black civil rights.  It is not the cause of George Floyd’s family.  It is not the cause of Americans of any color.

The problem here is that we have people who are not thinking.  The Left, the Democrats, the anti-Trumpers, the media all condemn our President for simply enforcing the laws of our country – for supporting our system and our way of life.  Indeed, many would destroy him along with the buildings and the “system.” 

There have always been people who hate America.  There always will be.  But this group, with the help of the media and a lack of solid education in critical thinking (yes, our education system could definitely use improvement), this group of people bent on the very real destruction of America seems to have gained a critical mass.  Using George Floyd’s murder as their match, these people have begun to set America on fire.  They are co-opting the legitimate grievances of sincere people and groups and using them to fan the flames of that fire.  And many, out of lack of understanding about what is going on, are letting themselves be used and are indeed standing by if not encouraging the destruction of our country. 

Some will cheer and say this is a good thing.  I will not.  I do not know which side will win.  But I do know that this hatred, this destructiveness, this lack of respect for all that is not you, this need to have every hurt one suffers blamed upon another who then becomes a target for hatred, revenge, and retribution, this is in large part the result of identity politics. 

It does not look like it today, but we are indeed one America with far more in common than not.  We all know that our form of government is great but not perfect and if we were not urged to perpetuate our hatred we could work together to improve rather than destroy our “system.”  But first we must see people as people.  We must see individuals and not mere cardboard cutout representatives of some group we have been taught to hate. 

And that is the long answer to how I would “change the system.”  I would not.  And I would not let individual issues with our “system” be co-opted for its destruction.  

In essence we need to reset ourselves.  We need to say NO I am not and you are not simply a one dimensional label of one or another identity group.  You are a human being and I am a human being and we each may fit within any number of identity labels, but we are yet more beyond that.  And we will not judge and hate because of some label that is placed upon you or me.  

More importantly, we must not allow others to co-opt our identity and our individuality to fuel the fires of hatred started to further someone else’s power.  We must all proclaim:  I will not destroy but I will work to improve – my life, your life, and the “system.”