“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.

In case you are confused about when blatant bigotry IS and IS NOT allowable, dear readers, American Daughter will provide a convient cheat sheet. You can print this out and take it with you, tucked away in your purse or pocket, to social gatherings, or more importantly, to public appearances on radio or television.

• A non-black person IS NOT allowed to state the obvious fact that another person who is black, is black. Don Imus just got himself into trouble again for doing that on his radio show. You can listen to his original remarks here.

• A black person IS allowed to make much of the obvious fact that he or she is black, especially in cases where this facilitates the claim of victimhood with potential benefits from presumed “white guilt.” For example, Barack Obama played the race card in the primary and now is doing it again for the general election — very prominently. Nothing subtle about dealing this hand.
• Criticism of a woman in a position of importance IS NOT allowed. Even if the criticism is justified, say because of a low approval rating, you will be accused of sexism.

Tail wag: Gateway Pundit

• So-called “progressive Christians” ARE allowed to criticize evangelicals — but James Dobson pushes back.
• Evangelicals ARE NOT allowed to criticize progressive or black Christians.
• And black Christians ARE allowed to damn their country, if they perceive that it is controlled by a white majority.

Just so you are clear on that!

 

• If you are a citizen of the United States, you ARE NOT allowed to oppose the criminal illegal aliens who break our laws by entering our country without permission. If you do that, you will be labelled as a racist.
• But if you are an illegal alien, living off the resources provided by the taxpayers of the country you have invaded, you ARE allowed all forms of disrespect for your benefactors.
   

   

 

• Muslims ARE allowed to burn the flag of England — “We start with your flag, we end with your blood.”

• Muslims ARE allowed to desecrate the American flag.

• But non-Muslims ARE NOT allowed to say much of anything about Muslims. If they do, the overly sensitive Muslims will take it as an insult. This is not just a social restriction. It is considered a mortal offense.

• Age discrimination against white males (who are definitely becoming a beleaguered minority) IS allowable. On the FOXNews show Hannity & Colmes (Tuesday, June 24, 9-10PM EST) Alan Colmes referred to John McCain as someone who

  “…has been around since the earth cooled.”

……….

Now just imagine that Alan Colmes had been Don Imus…

And just imagine that John McCain had been black…

Related articles:

Barack Obama plays the race card: early and often

The Candidate of Hope, Change and… Race Baiting…

UPDATE, Wednesday evening — We just had to add this comment left on Buzzwatch:

Political correctness is the new McCarthyism.