Clear as Mud

I recently read an op-ed column that began: “It is clear we have real racial problems in this country….”

Now, as a writer myself I understand that sometimes we begin with phrases like this, often called “throat clearing” phrases, that are simply a way to get us started.  But, that being said, my immediate reaction to this was “No, it is not clear and by the way, do we really have real racial problems in this country?” 

My next thought is, “No, I don’t think so.”  What we do have is a lot of people who don’t have the life that they would like to have and/or who are jealous of some of the lives of others.   We have people who like to blame others for their own discontent.  Those things are, of course, part of human nature.

But what we also have are people who use the discontent of others to agitate and create anger and hate which they then use not to remedy the discontented but to further their own gain.  Indeed, this is the classic tactic of Marxism and Socialism and even of community organizing. Rather than encouraging self-examination or reminding that life is not fair, they will encourage seeing individual dissatisfactions as resulting from a larger, group oppression of some sort. 

Find a common dissatisfaction, find someone to blame, agitate the dissatisfied to attack the one who has been assigned the blame.  The result may improve the lives of the dissatisfied temporarily, but its real goal is to make the dissatisfied indebted to the agitator.

The Democrats have become masters at this.  They create identity groups and then use them until they are no longer useful.  We had the pussy-hat marches a couple of years ago, we had the many LGBTQ protests and demands.  Now we have the BLM organization, pushed by progressives and other Leftists who, seeing an opportunity in George Floyd’s death, have fomented anti-white, anti-law enforcement, anti-rule of law and Constitution, anti-American sentiment, leading to the devastation of many cities in this country.  Their goal is not to end racism but to end the presidency of Donald Trump and to push this country ever closer to a complete restructuring into socialism.

This is not racism.  This is not a racial problem.  This is a political problem created by very skillful politicians.  Now before you come to send me to a reeducation camp, I am not saying that racism does not exist.  It does, it always has, and it always will.  It is human nature to be wary of those different from us, whether in behavior or skin color or dress or any number of things.  Sometimes that wariness will cross the line and become racist.  But that does not mean that the country has a racial problem. 

It does mean that we have fallen into the divisive tribalism of identity politics.  And, if the agitated identity group is a particular race, then that group will see its oppression as racist.  And if their blame target is a governmental system, then they will assert that the system is racist.  But that does not make it so. 

Racism is not just being aware that someone is in some way different from oneself.  Racism is “the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”  There was a time in this country, as well as in much of the world, when Black people were considered in some way less than human or at least inferior enough to justify slave-holding.  There was a time when Blacks could not mix with Whites in any way, not even at the drinking fountain. 

In large part due to our form of democracy and our Constitution we were able to move through and forward from those times.  We acknowledged the errors and did what we could to make the way forward better.  We passed civil rights legislation.  We created things like affirmative action.  We integrated schools.  Some people did better with these new opportunities than did others.

But one group who has always found something to their own advantage in Black issues is the Democrats.  As the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s presented Blacks with opportunities to move forward, the Democrats also saw an opportunity to create a permanent underclass of supportive voters. 

By creating entitlements and encouraging Blacks to become permanently dependent on those entitlements the Democrats were able to keep them “in their place.”  That is, entitlement dependence has a way of destroying motivation and independence.  It becomes necessary to keep the benefactor in power so as not to lose one’s benefits.  And, coexistent with this loss of self is the belief that one is somehow “less than” and not able to do as well as others.  One comes to accept one’s fate as somehow second class.

With that second class feeling comes discontent.  Discontent that is ripe to be agitated into anger and a belief that one has been and is being discriminated against.  And that, I think, is what we are really seeing when we say that “it is clear we have racial problems.”

But that is not a racial problem.  Those who have been enticed into becoming an underclass are now grouped into an identity class and directed toward a target to blame for their discontent.  That target is “racism”, now asserted to be systemic and hence anything or anyone associated with or supportive of traditional American institutions.

This is false racism, and it is a problem.  Those who are against the traditional American system of government are using the cover of racism to further their own anti-American agenda.  “Racism” is the smoke screen; it is the weapon that is being aimed at America.  But America, while it does have racists, is not itself racist.  And, if anyone would read its history and the words of its founders (before those books are all burned along with the statues), they would see that this country’s founding ideals were not racist.  Even if the racism that accompanied the acceptance of slavery was once a part of the system, it is not now. 

I think the better statement would be, “It is clear we have a real anti-American problem within this country.”  That is, we have a significant group who do not believe in or support our form of government and our Constitution.  Their goal is to entirely dismantle it, in essence destroy the soul that is America, and then remake it into something else.  The “racial problems” are asserted and then encouraged; they are a part of the identity politics which are a key tool in the attacks designed to deconstruct America.

So, while there may be individual acts of racism against which we should all speak out, the bigger and more pervasive problem is the misuse of a manufactured and false “institutionalized” racism to attack America.  And, in a way, that is the real racism – the methods used by Democrats to first create a dependent underclass and then to agitate that group into an identity political battalion being used to further the Left’s quest for power and domination.

 

Sometimes a Mask is Not Just a Mask

CoVid.  Here is what we know:  it is an easily transmittable, airborne virus that has no cure and no vaccine and unknown long term effects; it can kill you or you can have it and be completely asymptomatic.   Given that bottom line you can assess its risk to you in any given situation in the same way that you assess other risks that you face every day.   And we do face many other deadly risks every day.  So why the obsession and continuing hysteria about CoVid?  I suggest that it is not really much about CoVid at all, but a lot about using CoVid as a political football. 

Marco Rubio correctly states that having a rational response to the virus “will be hard to achieve as long as we have a heavily politicized narrative that demands you to pick one of two views.”  He defines these as:

A.      The virus is the apocalypse and everything must close

B.     The virus is being exaggerated and will go away on its own.

Certainly these are decent descriptions of the two narratives, neither of which, by the way, is factually accurate.  But let’s consider the reasons behind these two narratives and what each represents.

From the very first notice we got of the virus and that it had reached our shores, the Democrats, never ones to let a crisis go to waste, saw it as something to be used against President Trump and his supporters. 

In January, our economy was at record levels, Black and minority unemployment at its lowest ever, new businesses and industry were thriving, things were looking pretty good.  I suspect that the possibility that this might end caused some anti-Trumpers to salivate. 

The President stopped travelers entering from China, then Europe, then elsewhere.  His opponents first attacked that move as racist, then complained that he had not done it soon enough.  Democrats began their calls for investigations or even another impeachment for the early handling of the virus. 

CoVid was indeed scary.  No one knew much about it except that it could be deadly, especially for older people or people with underlying conditions.   Those seriously affected would need ventilators and hospital beds and we would need a seemingly endless supply of masks for medical personnel.  We wanted to test everyone.  We needed to avoid a surge of the virus so large that it would overtax our resources. 

So, while the administration went to work ramping up the manufacture of needed supplies (many of which had been allowed to deplete during prior administrations) and setting up military field hospitals (many of which have gone unused), people were urged and/or ordered to stay at home in order to  “flatten the curve.”

The President had daily briefings with his CoVid team during which the doctors and other officials could inform the public of the actual facts about the virus – facts that properly evolved daily as more information was constantly being acquired.  The Democrats objected to these briefings, asserting that they should not be covered or carried live by the media (apparently they did not want the people to be informed from the sources, but only to hear their edited and often misleading takes on the briefings).

The stimulus proposals that had been and continue to be put forth by Democrats contained many items that went well beyond what was necessary to deal with the short term effect of a closed economy and were actually part of their Leftist/Socialist wishlist.  That’s not to say that the Republicans didn’t also see these stimulus measures as a way to gain favor with small businesses and other key members of their base.

As things seemingly came under control and active cases began to level off, there were calls to open back up.  Complete closure could not continue.  It was devastating to the economy as well as to the psyche of many.  So we began a slow opening – too slow for some, too fast for others.  Each governor determined the rules for their state (this is their power and right under our system of government).  Here is where I suggest it really became far too political. 

The hit CoVid took on the economy erased the incredible numbers that the Trump administration had achieved.  So, is it really surprising that many Democrat states maintained far more shut down restrictions than those of their Republican counterparts?  Surely at least in the back of their minds was the thought that if we can keep the economy down and unemployment up it will hurt Trump in the upcoming election.  At the same time, Trump and the Republicans wanted to get things moving again and were perhaps more willing to throw some caution to the wind in order to revitalize the economy.  Both were looking somewhat at the science, but also at the politics of the situation.

The governors’ restrictions quickly became both ridiculous and hypocritical.  Science often did not seem to match what was and was not allowed.  The New Mexico governor said breweries (where beer is both brewed and then served in a bar-like atmosphere) could open, but bars could not, nor could the VFW halls which serve beer.  She noted that it was a different kind of clientele at the breweries (could she mean good hipster Democrats vs bad redneck Republicans?). 

The height of hypocrisy came when those governors who had begun mandating or at least encouraging masks cheered on protestors who gathered and said nothing about nor enforced the mask requirements.  In New York the virus contact tracers are not even allowed to ask about protest attendance.   At the same time as the protests were applauded for gathering large groups, Trump’s rally was condemned because it gathered people together.  This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

When the rules are applied to some but not to others, one can’t help but wonder if the rules are really necessary.  Statements of the dire nature of the threat and hence the need for dire restrictions does not match the fact that many restrictions are not enforced or are simply excused for the favored groups.  This credibility gap is sure to make one wonder about why one should believe any call for any regulations.  And, in our current climate it is not surprising that people should begin to suspect political motivation.

Then we have the reporting about the virus itself.  We now have much more data available, but sadly what that means is that only pieces of that data will be put forward depending on one’s political agenda.  If one wants to keep the country and its economy suffering you can surely find numbers that will support a demand for another complete shut down along with its damage to the economy and hopefully your political opponents.  If you want to see the country fast tracked to normal then you can find data that supports that as well.  Not only can data be found to support varying views, all data is subject to interpretation, and political interpretations are now the flavor du jour.

Not many people have the time or the education to fully read and then assess the data.  They rely on the news media for their information.  The news media seems to enjoy sustaining as much hysteria as possible.  It is probably good for its ratings.  It is also generally good for the Democrats whose political views the media tends to support.

Masks seem to have become the epicenter of all of this.  As we learned more about the virus, data more and more showed that the spread of the virus was in most instances via droplets spread through the air and not from surfaces.  Studies also began to teach how far the droplets could generally travel – somewhere around 6 feet in normal situations (more in other types of situations where a greater force is used in expelling air).  It also became apparent that the more time spent together and the larger the crowd, the more that one’s risk of being infected became.

The science clearly supports the fact that wearing a mask inhibits the possible spread of the disease by the wearer.  Wearing masks is done not for the wearer but for those with whom the wearer comes into contact.  The protection is not absolute, but it is significant.  One would think that just as one does other considerate gestures for his fellow man, one would wear a mask.

But, this is not about health and masks and civil behavior.  Mask wearing has become the representative of how much one will allow government to mandate certain behavior, of whether one is for or against big government, and probably a fairly good predictor of how one will vote in November.  For some reason the health requirement of wearing a mask is seen by some as a complete abolishment of all their rights.  They think that if government can tell them to wear a mask then government can tell them everything, including what to think.  And, when many Democrat leaders waive any suggestion of masks for BLM and other anti-government protestors, it is easy to see that political motivation has overtaken health concerns, even those that have scientific support.

This is a political battle that has become completely disconnected from the CoVid threat.  With that in mind, with their disconnect from science, governors have lost any credibility or authority to impose or enforce regulations.  In New Mexico, one city mayor simply called his prohibited 4^th of July parade a protest since the Governor had banned parades but endorsed and allowed protests.

With their credibility gone, the Governors (and some of the medical professionals) need to stop calling winners and losers in regard to what can and cannot open and what people can and cannot do.  We all know the risk.  Bottom line is we could die.  That’s the science and if we are given the actual science without the hyped and conflicting narratives, each of us individually can decide what in our life is worth taking that risk.

As to masks, I do believe we should wear them when in public just as we should all make the effort to social distance when possible.  I don’t think it is unreasonable for there to be, for the common good, some sort of mask requirement.   It is not fair to open everything, tell me it is my decision to take the risk, but then to make that risk greater than it should be by eliminating even the suggestion of masks.  That is, if a theater is open to full capacity, I can decide whether or not to go.  But, if no one there will be wearing a mask, it becomes unreasonably unsafe for me to be there and so, by removing even the suggestion of mask requirements I am actually denied more rights than those who would go maskless.

If we can assume that our fellow citizens will act responsibly – including wearing a mask not for their protection but for the protection of others – then we can indeed open back up and people will go where they choose depending on their individual risk assessments.  This is no different than when I make a decision to drive:  I understand that others on the road are expected to follow certain driving regulations that they may not like but that exist for the common good.  I of course know that some few will not, but I expect that most will and with that I am free to drive or not based on my assessment of the risk to me.  But, if I know that there are no driving regulations or that they will never be enforced or that a significant number of other drivers will refuse to follow those regulations, then my risk assessment and my freedom to drive is vastly diminished.   It is no different with masks.

But, it’s really not about any of this at all.  It’s about making a political statement.  That is what CoVid has become – nothing more than a political tool, a set of statistics to throw back and forth, a mask with which to stake one’s righteous political claim.   And, while we play these political games, the reality is that the apocalypse is not here, but CoVid is, and some people are in fact dying.

Different Agendas

These are photos of two very different sets of protestors confronting police.  The first is from a 1967 anti-war demonstration at the Pentagon, the second is from a BLM demonstration in NY in the past month.

Someone asked me why today’s protestors seem so “mean and angry.”

The woman in the lower photo certainly looks angrier than the young man in the top photo placing flowers in the guns of the police.  But is she?  Or is it a different kind of anger stemming from very different underlying motivations?

I am a “veteran” of anti-war protests of the 60s.  While my experience was mostly one of loud, rowdy, but mostly peaceful protests, that does not mean that there was not also some violence at some protests.   There were organizations that sometimes seemed more interested in creating violent situations than in having their voices heard in protest.  I can recall attending a couple meetings of the radical SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and learning “guerrilla warfare” tactics that could be used for violence within a crowd.  (I did not participate in those protests). 

SDS was a Leftist or perhaps Socialist organization; its militant faction the Weathermen were inspired by other revolutionaries and believed that by creating or inflaming violent confrontations they could “bring the war home” meaning force the U.S. out of Vietnam in order to deal with a violent domestic revolution.  Whether their hopes for their revolution went beyond that or not, I don’t know.

Protesters of the 60s talked about peace and love, but they were also angry.  The anti-war protests channeled the anger that many had toward what they saw as a conflict that the U.S. should never have become involved in and should get out of as soon as possible.  The anger was at what the protesters saw as a misguided policy giving way to incorrect if not immoral actions of our government.  The hope was that the government would change course.  The protesters were passionate about their cause. 

Today’s protesters are also passionate.  Many of the protesters are peaceful and, not unlike SDS of the 60s, there are also more militant and violent groups.   But their focus is broader than one defined misstep and mistaken policy of their government.  The protests look, feel, and indeed are very different.

I suggest that the difference is the underlying agendas.  The vast majority of the anti-war protesters of the 60s wanted to end the war.  They may have had different reasons (pacifist; saw this war as unjust; didn’t think US role included this war; didn’t want to be drafted; pro-communist; just want to be with the cool kids; and many more) but the underlying agenda was to stop the war.  Not the government, but the government’s participation in this unjust war.  That was the underlying clear focus and the belief was that if that participation ended the country and the government would be better.

I would note that there were other protests during the 60s – civil rights, women’s rights are two that I was also acquainted with.  Like the anti-war protests of the time, these protests also had a very focused target with the underlying agenda of causing the government to correct that targeted wrong and hence move forward to be better for its correction.

At times the 60s protests might very well have sounded like and looked like an expression of hatred for the government generally, but in reality it was for most of the protestors a hatred for a particular policy or action of the government.  Stopping that action, not the entire government, was the agenda.  The anger was a constructive and positive movement forward. 

Not so the current protests.  Today’s protests, whether peaceful, or attempts to incite violence, or actually violent are not directed at one act of our government but at the entire government (the “system”).  While today’s protesters may speak of justice and a better America, their agenda in achieving that is not to correct misguided actions but to actually dismantle the entire structure of America and rebuild it as something else. 

This is classic Marxism. Any good Marxist or Socialist understands that a revolution which seeks to restructure a governmental system must involve violence.  And, like any good Marxist leader, the leaders of this revolution have created a coalition of victim groups and pitted them against the “system.”    Lenin, in engineering the Russian revolution, used the workers as the ones to press that revolution and destroy the existing system.  (Once it was destroyed, however, power was once again taken from the workers and returned to a new power group to build a new system from the top down.)

Today we do not have a worker class revolting against czars, but we do have identity groups fomented to “hate the system” and hence to tear it down.  While the protestors of the 60s still, for the most part, respected the “system,” today's protestors do not.  They don’t want to fix it, they want to destroy it.  Why?

When they were children, the 60s protestors were taught that America is a great country.  They were told of America’s strengths and weaknesses, of her achievements and her sins.  But, most importantly, they were taught that the American “system” provided a voice and a means of making corrections and improvements that would move America forward and to even more positive achievements.  They learned that this voice (and its accompanying responsibilities) belongs to them and that while our government through our Constitution protects and preserves that right, it does not own it.

Today’s protestors have not been taught how the “system” works for our and the country’s good.  Rather, they have been told that America is generally bad and its “system” is not good.  Rather than being taught that the Constitution protects rights that belong to each individual, they are taught that rights are something the government creates and then gives these rights to (or takes them away from) the individual.  The government, not the individual, owns the rights.   From there it is an easy step to convince those who do not have all that they want or that others have acquired or achieved that they are victims of the “system.”

So, while the 60s protestors respected the system because it protected their individual rights (including their right to protest), today’s protestors rebel against a system that they see as not providing what it should.  This is a big difference.  And the anger that is generated is also very different. 

If the perceived or desired “system” is one of large government that, rather than protecting individual rights, doles them out as it sees fit and thus, takes from the people their right to guide themselves, then it makes sense that one who feels that he or others are unfairly dealt with might want to overturn that “system.”  And, so, today’s protestors work not to correct a misstep of our current system, but to overturn it entirely.

The 60s protestors, and many similar protests from our history (women’s vote, civil rights, union and labor laws, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, etc. ) have all had an agenda directed at correcting what was viewed by the protestors as a wrong action of government.  Working with the system and the right it gives people to conduct such protests, these groups worked and channeled their anger to better the existing system.

Today’s protestors do not have a similar narrowly focused agenda.  Theirs is not to correct a specific wrong, but to dismantle an entire system.  This is a revolution going on.  The anger it generates is destructive. 

The language and demands and future visions of the movement sound a lot like the pretty promises of Socialism.  The tactics are the same – create a victim group or groups and pit them against other groups that are labeled to signify the victimizers and the current system.  Step one – destroy the system.  Step 2- rebuild to the design of a new ruling class.  That is the agenda and it is very different from simply wanting to fix something within an otherwise functioning and good system.

So, the soldiers in the protests may have the same passion, but the anger is very different and is the product of a very different sort of war.  While the 60s protestors for the most part had a general respect for and wanted to correct and improve the “system”, today’s protestors have little respect for the “system” or any of its institutions.  Their anger is different, and their agenda is destructive. 

Today’s protestors are not interested in improvement of what exists.  They want to tear down America.   Their anger is that of a manipulated socialist revolutionary.  It is not directed at anything other than destruction.  And that is why today’s protests look and feel very different.

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.

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.