Left, white, grovel 7

What is wrong with racial prejudice – before it is even acted on – is that it is a collective verdict. Individuals are seen primarily as belonging to this or that race, and the characteristics presumed to be those of the race are presumed to be those of each member of it.

To individualists, every human being is unique. Fair enough to judge him by the contents of his character (as Martin Luther King advocated), or the the contents of his mind (as we do), or his actions (as those affected by them inevitably will). He (or she, understood) may be – probably will be – first reacted to according to his perceived race, color, ethnic descent, place of origin, accent, physical build, manner and style; but to what extent do such facts about him have any significant effect on his social relationships and transactions? Impossible to know, and foolish to presume.

It is intensely unjust to select a person to be a specimen of a class and punish him for whatever its offenses are presumed to be. 

It is what terrorists do when they inflict pain and death on someone because he is of this or that race, class, or occupation. In the 1970s young middle-class, affluent, educated, European terrorists seized businessmen and industrialists, held them to ransom, tortured and murdered them because they “belonged to the class” of businessmen and industrialists. The terrorists justified their actions as being blows against injustice – the injustice of racism, classism, and (especially) capitalism.

It is what Muslim terrorists do when they cut off an American’s head because he is American. And it is what Islam does perpetually to women. Muslim women are under a collective sentence of enslavement. The only thing that matters about any one of them is her sex.

It is what black racists do when they hold “whiteness” to be an offense that needs to be atoned for by every “whitey”.

It is what feminists do when they complain about “the patriarchy” and want revenge on every man for that ages-long male dominance (thanks to which we have a great civilization).

As stupid as treating others according to presumptions about their race or class or occupation, is setting oneself up as a representative of a race, or class, or country. 

That is what Barack Obama does – has the breathtaking hubris to do – when he apologizes to other (often morally and culturally inferior) nations as the self-appointed spokesman for the American people, past and present, for something done that he personally disapproves of.

In all circumstances it is absurd and immoral to apologize for something you personally haven’t done. Just as it is absurd and immoral for you to forgive someone for something he did to someone else.

Obama, the Democratic Party, collectivists in general take an opposite view of course.

The Democrat-dominated government of Delaware provides a nice fresh example of this kind of nugatory group-think:

AP reports:

Gov. Jack Markell-D signed a resolution Wednesday apologizing for Delaware’s role in slavery and wrongs committed against blacks during the Jim Crow era. …

The resolution apologizing for slavery is a symbolic measure aimed at promoting “reconciliation and healing”.  …

According to the resolution, legislatures in eight other states also have apologized for their roles in slavery.

Nationally, congressional resolutions apologizing for slavery were passed separately in the House in 2008 and the Senate the following year, but the two measures have never been reconciled into a single version to be submitted to the president for his signature.

Why not, we wonder. President Obama would sign the ridiculous thing for sure.

  • liz

    What a crock. Every nation or tribe in history – including the African tribes the slaves descended from, who engaged in slavery themselves – should then have to apologize to someone for something they did sometime! The entire premise is patently ridiculous.

  • OH! NO, NO, NO, Jillian,
    unless I made a vast error in syntax,
    I was calling MYSELF an old, senile ape…which is 100% a fact.
    Jillian, would you please copy & paste exactly, the entire statement, ’cause
    I do try to get me wee sentences, somewhat, accurate.
    Heck, I opine thus, ye be a highly intelligent, most attractive being.
    BTW I hold a vast range of concepts soooooo who said that I’m a Liberal?
    My goodness, I think PBS should be taken off the air.
    Of course, methinks PBS needs to go ’cause it’s too far to the right and
    exists, much the same as The History Channel, to support
    the presently prevailing mythologies.
    BTW did ya hear about Ovid creatin’ the Hay Zeus character?
    Best Wishes,
    Tor

    • I deleted your rambling “comment” so cannot quote the entire statement. It made no sense. You know it made no sense. I don’t know what you were getting at, but it sure seemed that you were calling the administrator of The Atheist Conservative Facebook page a “senile old ape”. Those were almost the only words that made any sense. Frankly, I thought it was quite funny. But the rest was raving.

  • As someone, methinks ’twere ye,

    once posted at their FB page,

    “No. We have noticed nothing praiseworthy about liberals. Not a thing.”
    Anywho, the thing that IS 100% incorrect with racial prejudice is, was and shall be THAT…..there in ONLY one race….the human race, subdivisions are ‘Breeds,’ just the same as with doggie and kitties and many other DNA formations.

    • Being (eg.) a liberal, or a Christian, or an atheist, or a conservative, or a Muslim, or a libertarian, or a Socialist is a matter of individual choice. To criticize an ideology – a set of ideas – is a completely different thing from criticizing a race, an ethnicity, a sex. Or, say, a person who is old for being old. For instance, you (a liberal) called me “a senile old ape”. That is ageism. My age is not an idea, which should be critically examined. I hope you are sober enough to follow this argument, since you began it.

      • Les_uk

        As poor old Tor admits to being senile, perhaps you should give him a bit of leeway… anyway, a nice bit of raving livens up the comments.
        Given that religious belief systems are so irrational and evidence-free, I would question to what degree adherence to them is a matter of individual choice. I suspect that if it wasn’t for the indoctrination of children, and continued social pressure by religion dominated societies – not to mention sanctions such as ostracism from the familily unit, and/or the death penalty for apostacy (prescient idea there, Mo) there would nowadays be far less of it about.

        • You are right of course. Still, for an adult, religion is always a matter of choice, however difficult. Unlike race, or (until quite recently) sex.