By William Bradford Krones | Tuesday, September 16th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
“Allowable racism” is, as detailed in an earlier article, one of the more cynical manifestations of current leftist thinking that has been plaguing the nation and our sensibilities for some years. Consider, also, that this phenomenon is but a part of a larger package of ideas, courtesy of our friends on the left, and if one examines the dynamics of the larger theme, then one can comprehend their argument, if not agree.
The country was founded upon the basic principle that individual rights are the primary genesis of law and economic behavior. This is a relatively new idea in the scale of history, being completely antithetical to the traditional notion that the collective is the fundamental consideration for organizing society.
Now, if you believe that the only hope for human justice and equality lies with Marx and his followers, than you will not be getting anywhere unless you can diminish the notion of individualism in favor of the collective. How can this be done? The methodology chosen by our opponents on the left has been to introduce the concept of tribalism. Identity fostered not by one’s individuality, but by membership in a sub-group. Thus, American blacks are identified not as individuals who happen to be black, but as members in the group known as “blacks,” or “African-Americans.”
Think of the policy implications. For example, Affirmative Action — now, there is an absurd term, if ever there was one — could not exist if the test was based on persons as individuals. This nonsense is obviously discriminatory if we use American constitutional guidelines as a basepoint. However, if the dymanic shifts from protecting the rights and opportunities of the individual to protecting the group, then the policy makes perfect sense.
In the geography departments of the major universities, “The United States of America” is not labeled a “nation,” but is referred to as a collection of tribes — or groups-living within a federal political system. A nation, in geographic terms, is a group of people who share a cultural and ethnic identity, and who live on a definitive landmass. The Cherokee Indians are labeled a “nation,” for example.
Further, our friends in the universities will tell you that not only is America only a collection of sub-groups, but that there is no such thing as an American culture. In place of a unique, identifiable culture, we are told, America is only a collection of cultures from those who have immigrated. (I have heard this said at several of the universities that I have attended. Ironically, these same professors will usually tell you a month or so later that the spread of American culture is ruining the world. I have always had difficulty reconciling these dual themes). Naturally, these same people assert that the concept of assimilation by migrants to this country is and always has been mythical.
What does this all mean with respect to policy making? With group rights comes group identity and group “victimhood.” Dozens of issues from immigration policy to the very idea of state’s rights and the utility of the Tenth Amendment have been and continue to be profoundly impacted, and not for the better. The policy and social implications are virtually immeasurable.
Comments: Comments Off|
Send a link: Tell a friend about this.
Link to this post: Permalink
Send us your link: Trackback link
Filed under: Racism|
Tags: Bigotry, Profiling, Racism