|"Not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character."|
The problem is, they are not really against racism. They are for it. To the terrible crime of racism, they are adding the terrible crime of lying about it, muddying the waters for those of us who are genuinely opposed to it.
Because when they say they are against racism, what they actually mean is that they are against the groups who assembled in Charlottesville recently to protest taking down the Robert E. Lee statue.
At least some of these groups practiced “white identity politics,” agreed. And white identity politics is racism. Fair enough.
But then, so is “black identity politics.” So is Black Lives Matter. So is “Hispanic identity politics.” So is La Raza. So is Muslim identity politics. So is “CAIR.” And on and on.
So what is racist is to protest against one, and not the others. That is saying that “whites” should not have the same rights as “blacks,” or “Hispanics,” or Muslims. And that is the real racism.
You actually hear statements like “only whites can be racists.” And “all whites are racist.” That is about as racist as a statement can be. An identifiable group of people are all being held guilty of something because of the colour of their skin.
I know what the response to my argument here will be: that racism has to do with power, and so, since straight white males have all the power in current North American society, only they can be racist.
There is a kernel of truth in there. Racism becomes truly dangerous only when exercised by political power—by the government. Individuals are, and ought to be, free to have their differing opinions. Including individuals freely associating in groups.
But who has that political power?
The clearest proof is, who do the laws favour? Whose statues, say, are the government authorities currently tearing down?
How many laws require “affirmative action” for straight white males? How much government money is being publicly put into programs specifically for whites, and white males? What are the laws about bequeathing scholarship endowments for white males, as contrasted to blacks, women, or Hispanics?
In other words, by the obvious test, the clear and present danger right now is racism/sexism against white males, not against blacks, Hispanics, or Muslims.
But, you may say, whites are the majority. Only minorities need protection.
In a democracy, it is true, the majority can run roughshod over a minority. This is a constant danger in a democracy; which is why we have checks and balances against it. Any despised minority can be scapegoated and brutalized by a democratic majority.
Now, guess who is a minority? Straight white males. The doctrine of “intersectionality” has conveniently and seemingly consciously parsed it all so that everyone else is separated off, leaving a minority that can be safely scapegoated. This is no different than had the target been blacks, or Jews, or Freemasons, or gypsies, or “the one percent”: you define your enemy as a minority, and then you can go after them.
Ah, you will object, but this particular minority has a disproportionate amount of financial and political power. So they are still getting more than their fair share.
Fine. Exactly the same argument could be, and was, used, against the Jews in Nazi Germany. They were better off and better educated, on the whole, than other Germans. One could not, then, by definition, be anti-Semitic, right? The Nazis were not racists, right? Only Jews could be racists?
The current rampant and growing racism and sexism against straight white males follows the familiar parabola of racism everywhere. The racists always begin by identifying themselves as the “oppressed”; they are just getting their own back. The Nazis said the Germans to have been viciously oppressed in the Versailles Peace Treaty, at the hands of the international Jews. Mussolini deffined Italy as a “proletarian nation” oppressed by the “plutocracies.” Before the Civil War, the Confederates, with reason, considered themselves an oppressed minority within the Union, being repeatedly pushed around by the more populous and wealthier north. After that war, the KKK considered themselves a purely defensive movement to defend poor Southerners oppressed by the northern carpetbaggers. In apartheid South Africa, the Boers considered themselves to have been oppressed by the British who came in, conquered, and put them in concentration camps. And wanted to throw them to the mercies of the fierce, oppressive Zulus.
This is all simply prejudice and racism as the game has always been played.
There is only one way to end discrimination: you stop discriminating.