Two stories with one central theme today, the second one being of more import.
Headline one: “Debates Over Buildings Honoring White Supremacists Grow“.
Research shows that many past personages were not everything they could have been, measured ruthlessly against our ever-enlightening sensibilities. Exposing our young to historical racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, bigots, and brutal white people could encourage only them to become themselves racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, bigots, and brutal white people (people of any race can now self-identify as white if they wish). If kids knew about these bygone blights, the cycle of evil would never end.
Therefore it is only right that these racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, bigots, and brutal white people be erased from history and dumped, to coin a phrase, down the memory hole.
Thus there was no such thing as the Confederate States of America, and it had no flag. Nor did this nonexistent government have any generals and thus any statues or images purporting to be these eminences were never in any parks or military academies. There was no such country as Rhodesia named after a chimera called Cecil Rhodes, and neither should there be a lucrative award in the name of a nowhere man.
Yale, alas, still believes there was a fellow names John C. Calhoun, a “white supremacist”. Right-minded activists tried to tell Yale that there was no such person, but Yale resisted. So far. Perhaps in the spirit of conciliation and compromise, Yale did agree to no longer call the Master of any college a “Master”. Because slaves had masters, you see.
Calhoun, who still exists as long as Yale says he does, was a “white supremacist”, they say, because he wasn’t as concerned about slavery as we rightly are.
The good news is that the Taliban and ISIS agree with the vision espoused by enlightenment activists, and are busy eliminating all traces of That Which Offends. Given these groups are not squeamish, they’re much more efficient than pasty-faced college administrators and undergraduates. This latter group is working hard at emulating the more robust techniques of the aforementioned entities, though.
Headline two: “How Anti-White Rhetoric Is Fueling White Nationalism“. This fellow Marcus has noticed elites (especially on campuses) are none too pleased with whites, especially white men. This is odd because many elites are themselves white; but they don’t much like themselves for it, even going so far as to publicly confess to sins they did not commit, like “microaggressions.”
This cajoling from the elite has “turned into an actual belief that white people, specifically white men, are more dangerous and immoral than any other people.” Well, whites are habitual overachievers, you will say, and you’d be right. But that’s not Marcus’s point, which is this: “White people are being asked–or pushed–to take stock of their whiteness and identify with it more.” He finds this “a remarkably bad idea”.
Now those on the opposite side of this will say whites deserve whatever they get, as long as what they get is bad, because whites have a history of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bigotry, and much more beside. The whites of today must pay, say many, for the crimes of the whites of yesterday and the microcrimes and privileges of today.
The verdict is that whites should be judged on their race and not the content of their character. And instead of bucking this, some whites are saying, “Okay, fine.”
This ready acquiescence flabbergasted those calling for whites to admit their corrupt nature. Whites were not supposed to band together and find pride; instead, they were meant to walk with slumped shoulders and with ever-ready apologies on their lips for making victims out of whomever it is that is designated as the victim of the moment. That instead some whites admitted the central premise of their enemies, that whites are different than other races, was not supposed to happen.
The results is that the whites who, as Marcus says, felt they were pushed into racial pride are now labeled “white supremacists”—in just the same way blacks who are pushed to feel racial pride are not called “black supremacists”. Yet again, what wasn’t foreseen by those who conceived “white supremacist” as an insult was that the term would be embraced and found goal-worthy!
The natural conclusion is that to alleviate the very situation they caused, the enlightened should shut the hell up about race (such a dreary subject!), let people associate with whomever they like, and find something better to do with their time. Well, enlightened is not a synonym of intelligent (and in fact may be a near antonym); so, what is happening is what physicists call a positive feedback.
The more whites are condemned (as a race), the more they band together and become more recognizable in their activities, and thus the greater the pressure on the condemers to condemn what they see as the bad behavior of whites, which increases the desire for whites to band together, which, etc., etc., etc.
Usually, these positive feedbacks dissipate on their own accord (boredom, Super Bowls, and other such like things distract the attention). Yet the enlightened love race as a concept so much that they can’t see how they can exist without it, and unfortunately for elites, it turns out that a good chunk of whites can’t be convinced to hate themselves.
Our forecast, then, is for further fury on both sides (and increases in stories like the first one).
Related post: Black And White Homicide Rates: Who’s Killing Whom? Needless admission: some people of every race hate people of other races.