Anti-racism is not "not racist." While it must start there, it is more. Anti-racism is the practice of opposing racism and promoting racial tolerance and equity.
Now, if you've read much of what I've written, I'm sure you can see the problem. We might (should) all agree that we should not be racist and, in fact, we should oppose racism; we should all be anti-racist. But, of course, that doesn't work for very long because, as you would expect, all the terms have changed. "Tolerance" has moved from "allowing views with which I don't agree" to "embracing and encouraging views with which I don't agree." "Racism" has moved from "the belief that ones own race is superior to other races" to "white," to "the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another." Anti-racism, then, has moved from "opposing the notion that ones own race is superior to others" to "opposing the advantage that white people have over other races." And, quite obviously, what is the solution to that racism? Discrimination against white people. (Just to be clear, that's not my guess, my conclusion or my interpretation. That's what has been stated explicitly.)
But it doesn't stop there. Included in racism (and, therefore, anti-racism) now is any idea, for instance, that wives should submit to their husbands (sexism) or that homosexual behavior is a sin ("homophobia") or that God is opposed to transgender ("transphobia"). If you are to be truly anti-racist you "must also be anticapitalist, feminist, non-homophobic, and non-transphobic." If you agree that we should all be anti-racist, accepting the new definitions, then you agree that we should all be actively working toward bringing down white people. You would oppose the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and economic freedom. You would count as offensive at the very least and possibly illegal the biblical commands of a wife to submit to her husband or that homosexual behavior is a sin or that God created male and female. You would oppose capitalism and necessarily seek to replace it. And, of course, you would absolutely need to ignore the fact that those values you are now opposing are the things which have brought about your freedom to oppose them.
If you thought that you could be "racially neutral," you were wrong. In fact, if you thought you could be a capitalist or a Bible-believing Christian and be anti-racist, you were wrong. Welcome to your new reality.
8 comments:
I have to say I cannot fathom what's wrong with reading skills today. I did not say, suggest, or hint at the idea that there is no racism in America today. I agreed that we should oppose racism and promote racial tolerance and equity. If anyone read this to say that I don't think there are any issues today, you read it wrong. What I said was that the new "anti-racism" is a real problem because it redefines every single component. And I came to that conclusion from reading black authors (one of which I linked).
Readers, you may disagree with me that the new "anti-racism" is a bad, even dangerous thing, but don't disagree with me when I say that racism is bad and we should oppose it. That's my position and I'm sticking to it.
How is it possible to conclude that you were anything but opposed to racism from your post.
I suppose it's because I am opposed to the "new and improved" definitions and, therefore, aims of anti-racism which, by definition, are anti-Christian and anti-American.
"Where does Stan get this stuff?" I get it from listening to black authors, like Ibram X. Kendi, author of How to Be an Antiracist. From Ch 5 — "Intersectional Racism"
"Because intersectional racism is made up of a combination of racist ideas and classist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic ideas, to be truly antiracist, we must also be anticapitalist, feminist, non-homophobic, and non-transphobic. For example, to believe that Black Lives Matter, we must believe that the lives of all Black people — be they poor, female, or queer — matter." (Emphasis in the original)
Listen to black voices, even when they contradict the white liberals.
Note his use of the word “must”, it’s almost like it’s required or something.
I’ll contrast that with what I’m reading which makes an excellent case that a free market capitalist economic system is the best answer for the millions who live in poverty worldwide.
Two people I commonly come across on social media are women who graduated from Evergreen College in one case and Hunter College in the other case. Last year I noticed both of those schools were in a list of the top 30 most liberal in the USA.
The irony as I see it (though they likely would say they disagree) is that such a high-percentage of their posts are fulminations against whites (in both women's cases) and against "cis-het" males (especially in the case of one of them) that anybody on social media who would complain as much about people of color or females or LGBTs would be branded as racist and sexist and homophobic by both of these women.
Double standards abound in our time.
It's not a double standard; they've redefined "racist" to include ONLY "whites" with a special emphasis on "white males."
Until these people return to an honest discussion of race, I'm not interested. Call it racist if you like, but I'm bored with it all, and very much disgusted by the dedication to preserving the institution in order to profit from it. Spare me. They won't if they can help it.
Post a Comment