So, you have Government spending millions of dollars to stigmatize a class of people based on their skin color. What makes anyone think this can go on and not have some of those people get angry about it?
This is not intended as an apologetic for the events in Charlottesville. My only point is you can’t teach people not be racist by being racist.
BTW, LANGUAGE WARNING for the following video (he is an atheist):
One must take note I am a creationist (in fact, a young earth creationist) and reject many of the artistic representations of entire clans and family units from a couple of teeth. I will merely assume “evolutionary” thinking to make my point[s]. Also note that the “out of Africa” and now, “out of Europe” theories have racial overtones and consequences if evolutionary naturalism is true.
If one throws all-in-to naturalistic evolution, you get an “ethnicity” [some call race] evolving before or after others ~ or ~ devolving from an ethnicity [or, species].
Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they have increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory
Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press, 1977), 127.
Several skeletons up end the sparse evidence for the human evolutionary tree (via TELEGRAPH).
“The history of human evolution has been rewritten after scientists discovered that Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa… two fossils of an ape-like creature which had human-like teeth have been found in Bulgaria and Greece, dating to 7.2 million years ago.”
“The Races Of Man – At the present time there exists upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent in structure. These are the Ethiopian or Negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the Islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America”
George William Hunter, A Civic Biology Presented in Problems (New York, NY: The American Book Company, 1914) 196. (For those that do not know, this was a textbook used in classrooms in public schools.)
7.2 million BC is a HUGE jump back in time that negates MOST of the African fossils. If proto-humans were already living in Bulgaria, or in sites now sunk under the Mediterranean Sea, the ENTIRE collection of African fossils is meaningless.
That is, some Europeans wandered SOUTH around 1 million years ago instead of some Africans wandering NORTH. It would also explain why negroid features exist only in Africa: they’re mutations from the common European stock from which the rest of the world descends.
It should be interesting to see what else turns up in Europe.
Sorry Black Lives Matter, so sad that you are not the cradle of civilization (assuming naturalistic evolution). Two books that just got a boost:
An earlier story has thrown a monkey wrench into the old story of human ancestry:
The thighbone of the 400,000-year-old hominid from Sima de los Huesos, Spain.
Scientists have found the oldest DNA evidence yet of humans’ biological history. But instead of neatly clarifying human evolution, the finding is adding new mysteries.
In a paper in the journal Nature, scientists reported Wednesday that they had retrieved ancient human DNA from a fossil dating back about 400,000 years, shattering the previous record of 100,000 years.
The fossil, a thigh bone found in Spain, had previously seemed to many experts to belong to a forerunner of Neanderthals. But its DNA tells a very different story. It most closely resembles DNA from an enigmatic lineage of humans known as Denisovans. Until now, Denisovans were known only from DNA retrieved from 80,000-year-old remains in Siberia, 4,000 miles east of where the new DNA was found.
The mismatch between the anatomical and genetic evidence surprised the scientists, who are now rethinking human evolution over the past few hundred thousand years….
Consider the following excerpt from a letter written by Charles Darwin in 1881:
“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit…. The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”[1]
Lest this be considered merely an aberration, note that Darwin repeated this sentiment in his book The Descent of Man, he speculated,
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”[2]
In addition, he subtitled his magnum opus, The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.
And Darwin was not alone in his racist ideology. Thomas Huxley, who coined the term agnostic and was the man most responsible for advancing Darwinian doctrine, he argued that:
“No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest. But whatever the position of stable equilibrium into which the laws of social gravitation may bring the negro, all responsibility for the result will henceforward lie between Nature and him. The white man may wash his hands of it, and the Caucasian conscience be void of reproach for evermore. And this, if we look to the bottom of the matter, is the real justification for the abolition policy.”[3]
Huxley was not only militantly racist but also lectured frequently against the resurrection of Christ, in whom “[we] are all one” (Galatians 3:28). In sharp distinction to the writings of such noted evolutionists as Hrdlicka, Haeckel, and Hooton, biblical Christianity makes it crystal clear that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female” (Galatians 3:28). In Christianity we sing, “Red and yellow, black and white, all are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world.” In the evolutionary hierarchy blacks are placed at the bottom, yellows and reds somewhere in the middle, and whites on top. As H. F. Osborn, director of the American Museum of National History and one of the most prominent American anthropologists of the first half of the twentieth century, put it.
“If an unbiased zoölogist were to descend upon the earth from Mars and study the races of man with the same impartiality as the races of fishes, birds and mammals, he would undoubtedly divide the existing races of man into several genera and into a very large number of species and subspecies.
“ … This is the recognition that the genus Homo is subdivided into three absolutely distinct stocks, which in zoölogy would be given the rank of species, if not of genera, stocks popularly known as the Caucasian, the Mongolian and the Negroid.
“The spiritual, intellectual, moral, and physical characters which separate these three great human stocks are far more profound and ancient than those which divide the Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean races. In my opinion these three primary stocks diverged from each other before the beginning of the Pleistocene or Ice Age. The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters, such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens.”[4]
Think of the historical consequences that are the direct and logical results of the naturalist worldview. For instance, Adolf Hitler, appealed to the people of his country to have a backbone to advance the logical outworking of their worldview. Now mind you, not all naturalists are racists or killers of the less fortunate… however, this is a logical outworking of philosophical [or, metaphysical] naturalism.
“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law [natural selection] did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all…. If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”[5]
Hitler referred to this dispensation of nature as “quite logical.” In fact, it was so logical to the Nazis that they built concentration camps to carry out their convictions about the human race as being “nothing but the product of heredity and environment” or as the Nazis liked to say, “of blood and soil.”[6]
It is significant to note that some of the Crusaders and others who used force to further their creeds in the name of God were acting in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ.[7]
The teachings of Osborn, Huxley, Hitler and others like them, however, are completely consistent with the teachings of Darwinian evolution. Indeed, social Darwinism has provided the scientific substructure for some of the most significant atrocities in human history. For evolution to succeed, it is as crucial that the unfit die as the fittest survive. Marvin Lubenow graphically portrays the ghastly consequences of such beliefs in his book Bones of Contention:
“If the unfit survived indefinitely, they would continue to ‘infect’ the fit with their less fit genes. The result is that the more fit genes would be diluted and compromised by the less fit genes, and evolution could not take place. The concept of evolution demands death. Death is thus as natural to evolution as it is foreign to biblical creation. The Bible teaches that death is a ‘foreigner,’ a condition superimposed upon humans and nature after creation. Death is an enemy, Christ has conquered it, and he will eventually destroy it. Their respective attitudes toward death reveal how many light years separate the concept of evolution from Biblical creation.”[8]
Adolph Hitler’s philosophy that Jews were subhuman and that Aryans were supermen (mirroring the beliefs Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood) led to the extermination of about six million Jews. In the words of Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist: “The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.”[9]
Karl Marx, the father of communism, saw in Darwinism the scientific and sociological support for an economic experiment that eclipsed even the carnage of Hitler’s Germany. His hatred of Christ and Christianity led to the mass murder of multiplied millions worldwide. Karl Marx so revered Darwin that his desire was to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to him. In 1983, the dissident Soviet author Alexander Solzhenitsyn had been awarded the prestigious Templeton Prize for religious progress. In accepting the award, he gave a clear assessment of the tragedy that had been so devastating to his homeland:
“I have spent well-nigh fifty tears working on the history of our Revolution. In the process, I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own towards the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were to asked today the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that has swallowed up some sixty-million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened’.”
It should be noted as well that Darwinian evolution (man evolving from lower creatures) is sexist as well. Under the subheading “Difference in the Mental Powers of the Two Sexes,” Darwin attempted to persuade followers that…
“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by mans attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women – whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…We may also infer…[that] the average of mental power in man must be above that of women.”
In sharp contrast to the evolutionary dogma, Scripture makes it clear that all humanity is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; Acts 17:29); that there is essential equality between the sexes (Galatians 3:28); and that slavery is as repugnant to God as murder and adultery (1 Timothy 1:10).
Appendix
Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1947):
p 15 – “Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution … as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”
p 28 – “To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy.”
p 72 – “Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect, the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti-evolutionary in its aim? This may be a merit, but if so it is one which has not been openly acknowledged by Christian philosophers.”
p 150 – “The law of evolution, as formulated by Darwin, provides an explanation of wars between nations, the only reasonable explanation known to us. The law was in existence, and wars were waged, for aeons of time before Darwin was born; he did not invent the law, he only made it known to his fellow men.”
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, last paragraph.
“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”
Footnotes
[1] Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, I, Letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, p. 316; cited in Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, by Gertrude Himmelfarb (London: Chatto & Windus, 1959), p. 343.
[2] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd ed. (New York: A. L. Burt Co., 1874), p.178.
[3] Thomas Huxley, Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews (New York: Appleton, 1871), pp 20-1.
[4] Henry Fairfield Osborn, “The Evolution of Human Races,”Natural History (January/February 1926), reprinted in Natural History, vol. 89 (April 1980), p. 129.
[5] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translator/annotator, James Murphy (New York: Hurst and Blackett, 1942), pp. 161-162.
[6] “The SS Blood and Soul,” one of four videos in a video series entitled, The Occult History of the Third Reich (St. Lauret, Quebec: Madacy Entertainment Group, 1998); Now in DVD – ISBN: 0974319465).
[7] This is a side note for those who are of the Christian faith: The Bible does not teach the horrible practices that some have committed in its name. It is true that it’s possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the details it produces evil because the individual people [“Christians”] are actually living in rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it [religion] can produce evil, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism (non-religious practices) actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We’re talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of à God. For example: the Inquisitions (2), Crusades (7), and the Salem Witch Trials killed about 40,000 persons combined (World Book Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Americana). A blight on Christianity? Certainty. Something wrong? Dismally wrong. A tragedy? Of course. Millions and millions of people killed? No. The numbers are tragic, but pale in comparison to the statistics of what non-religious criminals have committed; the Chinese regime of Mao Tse Tung, 60 million [+] dead (1945-1965), Stalin and Khrushchev, 66 million dead (USSR 1917-1959), Khmer Rouge (Cambodia 1975-1979) and Pol Pot, one-third of their respective populations dead; etc, etc. The difference here is that these non-God movements are merely living out their worldview, the struggle for power, survival of the fittest and all that, no natural law is being violated in other words (as atheists reduce everything to natural law – materialism). However, when people have misused the Christian religion for personal gain, they are in direct violation to what Christ taught, as well as to Natural Law.
[8] Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 47.
[9] Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1947), p. 230. See appendix for more quotes by Keith.
While I like their rants (Paul Watson, Mark Dice, and others) and these commentaries hold much truth in them, I do wish to caution you… he is part of Info Wars/Prison Planet network of yahoos, a crazy conspiracy arm of Alex Jones shite. Also, I bet if I talked to him he would reveal some pretty-crazy conspiratorial beliefs that would naturally undermine and be at-odds-with some of his rants. Just to be clear, I do not endorse these people or orgs. (LANGUAGE WARNING)
To see a fun tour of pictures mocking this, see this TWEET! As well as this WASHINGTON FEED post.
A series of 5-myths via Daniel Flynn’s excellent book — Machiavelli said, “One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.”
Daniel J. Flynn, Why the Left Hates America: Exposing the Lies That Have Obscured Our Nation’s Greatness (Roseville, CA: Prima Publishing, 2002), 126-132.
MYTH #3: AMERICA IS A RACIST NATION
MANY AMERICANS BELIEVE that their country invented racism. That is the bad news. The good news is that this notion is built on a series of myths. The Left charges bigotry not from a longing to stem racism but out of a desire to use it as an issue to discredit the country they hate. The Left’s cynical and deceptive depiction of historical events validates this hypothesis.
The Left points to the fact that the Constitution counted each slave as three-fifths of a free person as proof of the malignant nature of America’s founding. This bespeaks a complete ignorance of what was at stake in counting slaves equally alongside free men. The proponents of slavery sought to classify each slave as a full person to enhance their representation in the House of Representatives and the electoral college, thereby ensuring the survival of their inhumane institution. It was the opponents of slavery who sought not to count slaves at all. The three-fifths rule was the result of a compromise between the two sides. The irony of all this is that certainly the slaves themselves would have preferred that they not be counted at all or that they be counted as three-fifths of a free man rather than be counted whole to enhance the political power of their masters. All this is ignored because the “three-fifths” myth makes for good propaganda. These critics similarly point to the Declara tion of Independence’s lofty words that “all men are created equal” to indict the American system for hypocrisy. Yet the Declaration’s ideal served as the basis for most antislavery rhetoric for the four score and seven years that followed. By appealing to the American tradition and invoking the nation’s most-quoted document, abolitionists gained converts and ultimately found success. The Declaration of Independence’s ideal of equality, which contradicted the actual legal condition of slaves in 1776, actually paved the way for emancipation. Had the slaveholder Jefferson made his words consistent with his practices, African Americans certainly would have been enslaved for an even longer period of time.
Just as the Left deliberately mischaracterizes the American founding, sins of commission and omission mark their presentation of the history of slavery as well. With slaves singularly portrayed as black, many have the mistaken impression that the global institution targeted one race. We forget that the term “slave” derives from the name for the widely enslaved “Slavic” people. A parochial view of slavery likewise portrays the United States as the world’s greatest purveyor of slavery. David Horowitz writes,
In the years between 650 and 1600, before any Western involvement, somewhere between 3 million and 10 million Africans were bought by Muslim slavers for use in Saharan societies and in the trade in the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. By contrast, the enslavement of blacks in the United States lasted 89 years, from 1776 until 1865. The combined slave trade to the British colonies in North America and later to the United States accounted for less than 3 percent of the global trade in African slaves. The total number of slaves imported to North America was 800,000, less than the slave trade to the island of Cuba alone. If the internal African slave trade—which began in the seventh century and persists to this day in the Sudan, Mauritania and other sub-Saharan states—is taken into account, the responsibility of American traders shrinks to a fraction of 1 percent of the slavery problem.
What is truly peculiar about America’s “peculiar institution” is that a great number of people found it peculiar. Outside Western civilization, slavery was considered part of the natural order of things. Only westerners (besides the slaves themselves) questioned this order. “Never in the history of the world, outside of the West, has a group of people eligible to be slave-owners mobilized against the institution of slavery,” Dinesh D’Souza points out; later, he adds, “In numerous civilizations both Western and non-Western, slavery needed no defenders because it had no critics.”
Anti-American hatred motivates lies on more recent occurrences as well. A typical myth forwarded by racial demagogues is the story of Charles Drew’s death. Drew, who pioneered the effective use of blood banks, was critically injured in a 1950 car wreck. “Yet tragically,” a too widely used Afrocentric teacher’s guide maintains, “he encountered white racism at its ugliest—not one of several nearby white hospitals would provide the blood transfusions he so desperately needed, and on the way to the hospital that treated black people, he died. It is so ironic that the very process he developed, which had been saving thousands of human lives—was made unavailable to save his life.” Arthur Schlesinger observes, “It’s a hell of a story—the inventor of blood-plasma storage dead because racist whites denied him his own invention. Only it is not true.” No hospital turned Drew away; several white surgeons tried in vain to save his life. The graphic tale is a complete concoction. What else but base hatred for America motivated the architect of this canard?
The Left slanders America by claiming that the country sent members of minority groups to fight the Vietnam War while whites avoided the fray. This myth is so widely accepted that it even finds its way into mainstream pop culture references. One thinks of the hilarious scene in the movie South Park, for instance, when the cartoon soldiers directed to do the actual fighting are conspicuously all black. The commanding officer directs the other troops, who just happen to be all white, to stay in the rear. The humor works because it relies on a grievance that many believe to be justified. Yet there is no truth to support the claim that minorities disproportionately died in the Vietnam War. No significant statistical deviation exists between the percentage of blacks in the general population during the Vietnam War era and the number of blacks who died in Vietnam. During the Vietnam War, blacks made up more than 13% of the draft-age population but constituted 12.5% of the servicemen who perished in the war. Blacks served admirably in the Vietnam War, just as they have in other wars. The assertion that generals sent them to their deaths to save whites, however, is pure calumny.
If racism in America is so bad, why are self-described an-tiracist activists compelled to lie to make their point?
Such rhetoric and inventive stories serve neither truth nor the common good. Racial propaganda inevitably results in engendering animosity. Susan Sontag, no doubt having imbibed a steady stream of the fiery racial rhetoric of the times, wrote in the 1960s, “The white race is the cancer of human history.” The University of Massachusetts—Amherst’s Radical Student Union held an event in the spring of 2002 titled “Abolish the White Race.” Amongst self-styled intellectuals, a new field called “whiteness studies,” dedicated to denigrating Caucasians, has emerged. A recently launched journal in the field, Race Traitor, boasts the motto “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” It does not require a great deal of imagination to ask the inevitable question: What might the reaction be if one substituted “black” or some other racial or ethnic category for the word “white” in any of these examples?
As racial discrimination has abated, more than one observer has noted, public discussion of racism has paradoxically reached unprecedented levels. “Conditions are worse—much worse—for the masses of black people,” maintained activist Frank Kellum at a reunion of the Black Panthers, “than they were 35 years ago. And from the way it looks, they’re going to get worse.” In some key areas (e.g., crime, illegitimacy, and drug use), Kellum’s statement is valid. For the most part, however, blacks are much better off than they were a generation ago. This is especially true in areas where racism had traditionally affected opportunities in a major way. With discrimination marginalized culturally and, in some instances, outlawed legally, previously locked doors are now open. An objective look at economics, political rights, law, and education shows the remarkable progress that blacks and all Americans have made in just a few short decades.
President Timothy Jenkins of the University of the District of Columbia, a predominantly black college, recently pointed out that not a single African American was registered to vote in Alabama’s overwhelmingly black Lowndes County in 1965. Jenkins’s story, unfortunately, stopped in 1965. Today a black man, Congressman Earl Hilliard, represents the people of Lowndes County in Washington, D.C. According to cynics, nothing has changed. Yet would even a handful of blacks living in Lowndes County prefer residing there in 1952 instead of 2002? Times have changed. No person in Lowndes County, Alabama, or anywhere else in America is any longer denied the right to vote on account of skin color. With unrestricted access to the ballot comes political power. Today, African Americans serve as the secretary of state and the national security adviser. A black sits on the U.S. Supreme Court. And African Americans, including Earl Hilliard, occupy 37 seats in Congress as well.
Educational opportunities have increased. Apart from the obvious departure from separate but unequal schools in various parts of the country as a result of 1954’s Brown v. Board of Education decision, educational opportunities abound. In 1967, a mere 13% of college-age African Americans attended college. Today, more than 30% do. No other ethnic group has experienced as dramatic a rise in college enrollment over the same period.
Black economic gains have been dramatic as well. African Americans have the fastest economic growth for any major group in the United States over the course of the past three decades. In inflation-adjusted terms, black per capita income has more than doubled since 1970. Blacks still lag behind whites and Asians (though not Hispanics), but the income gap is getting smaller, not larger.
Black people in the United States are wealthier than black people anywhere else. Per capita income for blacks in America is 30 to 40 times higher than per capita income for blacks in Africa. The income gap between the inhabitants of the poorest countries on the African continent and black Americans differs by a factor of 100. There is no country in which blacks find more success than in the United States.
Nonblack minorities, such as Vietnamese, Cubans, and South Asian Indians, continue to achieve success in America as well. The incessant waves of non-European immigrants that have reached our shores for almost four decades find greater tolerance and acceptance than some European immigrants, such as the Irish, experienced 100 years ago. America, always a melting pot of various ethnicities and hues, has never been so welcoming.
Like every diverse nation, America has its share of racial problems. Considering ethnic wars in Sudan, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda; race-based expropriation in Zimbabwe; government-enforced discrimination against minority groups in China, Iran, and Ethiopia; and vestiges of the caste system in India, things could be a lot worse.
Larry Elder hits a “bases full homer” with this one. The Sage focuses in on John Podesta’s email to Hillary and talks about all the way this proves what he has been saying for YEARS. That is, the Democrat Party doesn’t care about Black men and women… in fact, they think they cannot change. And so, all the social programs are really just to keep the black man and woman on the Democrat plantation.
Republicans in contradistinction to the Left, think that anyone who works hard and follows some basic sociological steps (graduate high school, marry before having children, and the like) as well as following some basic economic steps (have an entrepreneurial spirit, understand supply and demand, and the like) — can be successful.
Larry Elder takes a caller challenge/disagreement on the difference of lethal and non-lethal force in regards to police shooting black perpetrators versus white perpetrators. After the call the segment ends, and so I pick up “The Sage’s” response in the next segment. Good stuff! Old stats BUT he proffers the info from the Harvard study a bit more in-depth, and it really seals his case well.
SKIP: “Where are we in the United Sates of America in race relations — in what you see from day to day in your life?”
LIL’ WAYNE: “Skip, they wouldn’t want to ask me that… they wouldn’t want my answer to represent them because God knows I have been nothing but blessed. These 33 years have been nothing but a blessing. I have never — and never is a strong word — never dealt with racism.”
SKIP: “So you’ve never experienced any offensive behavior from any other color?”
Crossway – A documentary featuring Pastor John Piper as he walks through his personal story of growing up in the segregated South. His personal story boldly champions the transforming power of the gospel and the beauty of racial diversity and harmony in Christ.
Just when you thought joyless, whining social justice warriors couldn’t possibly ruin anything else, they’ve now set their sights on Halloween. (H/T to Gateway Pundit)
Gay Patriot comments well on the above PC Police stopping “cultural appropriation”
Among all the tricks and treats, cultural appropriation is an undeniable problem this time of year.
By “undeniable problem” she means “irresistible opportunity for moralistic preening by social leftists.” In this case, she recommends cornering those whose costumes are deemed “offensive” and delivering a stern lecture on the sin of “cultural appropriation.”
“Cultural Appropriation” is a term created by sanctimonious social leftists to attack white people who enjoy partaking of non-white, non-European culture. White entertainers that incorporate elements of African, Caribbean, or Asian influences into their art and music: jazz, for example or Kabuki-inspired costumes, are guilty of cultural appropriation. Note that “Cultural Appropriation” only goes one way; to suggest that Africans should not attempt “white European art” such as ballet or classical music would be racism. “Cultural appropriation” has been extended by the sanctimonious social left to condemn colleges that serve tacos on campus and people who dress up as ninjas or bandidos for Halloween.
In reality, “cultural appropriation” is something privileged leftists made up to lord over other people because they have no real problems and no real morality. There’s also an element of the Baby Boom Left — for whom race sensitivity rivals only hyper-environmentalism as their religion of choice — that needs to keep their pieties from dying out in the Next Generation; even as racism becomes culturally and socially irrelevant.
