XPost: alt.politics.liberalism, alt.society.liberalism, alt.poli   
   ics.democrats.d   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics   
   From: mars1933@hotmail.com   
      
   All liberals have is meaningless buzz words. They call people racists.   
   Whatever. They don't have anything meaningful to say.   
      
   by Thomas Jackson   
   There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater   
   horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of   
   offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press   
   and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and   
   arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as   
   part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never   
   shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student   
   reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as   
   White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about   
   "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have   
   attracted far less attention and criticism.   
      
   Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full   
   alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach   
   against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is   
   racism?   
      
   Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the   
   word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock   
   is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are   
   rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal   
   more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a   
   clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American   
   meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are   
   equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been   
   declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who   
   questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.   
      
   The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If   
   blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts   
   for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of   
   racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation   
   for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor,   
   crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive   
   racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.   
      
   All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic.   
   Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White   
   wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of   
   racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their   
   hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have   
   oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must   
   oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be   
   identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since   
   blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be   
   millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and   
   night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no   
   room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion,   
   an indictment of White people.   
      
   The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to   
   believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White   
   racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on   
   welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another   
   act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing   
   proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For   
   precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the   
   same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and   
   oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange   
   conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be   
   committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black   
   congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black   
   mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist.   
   Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State   
   Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she   
   explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be   
   racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without   
   flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?   
      
   Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can,   
   perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been   
   forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White   
   oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable   
   and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not   
   an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would   
   surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal   
   when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.   
      
   Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost   
   tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the   
   word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and   
   the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black   
   Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are   
   silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative   
   statements about non-Whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks   
   on Whites.   
      
   At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White   
   candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black   
   opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107   
   "historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be   
   preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White   
   colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing.   
   To resist would be racist.   
      
   "Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything   
   that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of   
   hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect   
   school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas   
   for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.   
      
   Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is   
   now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if   
   practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable   
   favoritism.   
      
   All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses   
   are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club   
   or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The   
   National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)   
   campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights"   
   organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)