“a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”
You may be wondering why I began this article with Webster’s definition of racism. To be honest, when I looked it up, I wasn’t certain what it would say. Like most of you, I’ve heard the term so much lately that I’ve nearly forgotten what the actual definition of the word is. I was quite surprised to discover how narrow the definitions is.
The left is clearly the source of this confusion, though. They not only change the meanings of words to fit into their narratives of progressive change but they also they also change it so that its use will fit anyone with whom they disagree. This is not an accident and, I believe, it is done by design.
Just like history itself, in the liberal world, definitions are “flexible”. That should come as no surprise since we are talking about a group of people who believe that the Constitution of the United States is likewise “flexible”. Given that this is the case, why should Merriam-Webster have any special protections?
History, like common sense, is an ‘MFer’, as my Drill Sergeant used to say. History cannot be rewritten, only forgotten. Let’s remember a few of these facts from a time that was not so very long ago in the eyes of history. As much as the left would like you to forget it, they truly are the party of segregation, discrimination, and racism.
It was the Democratic Party that began the civil war in an attempt to maintain slavery and it was the first Republican President that made slavery go away. It was the Democratic Party that fought to keep schools segregated in the south in the 1960’s and it was The Democratic Party who elected and embraced two Senators who were former KKK members.
Amazingly, and they deserve a lot of credit for this, they have positioned themselves in the eyes of the media, and to the uninformed, to claim the title of protectors and guardians of minorities. This became necessary because the old title of protectors and guardians of the working class was so obviously false that they gave up saying it. Of course, as far as the media is concerned, they no longer have to convince them because “them” is “they”.
I grew up in a very small town in West Virginia and like a lot of small towns, we did not have very many minorities living there. In fact, the few that did live there and that I went to school with, were never seen as anything other than fellow students and friends. Nobody, that I knew anyway, used disparaging remarks or told off-color jokes. If someone did, it was likely that they thought that they were telling funny punch lines about people that they had never met. They were never directed at our classmates.
It was not until I joined the army that I saw genuine racism first hand and it was alive and well on all sides of the ethnic fence. I remember being genuinely perplexed as to why some minorities would not talk to me or eat with me in the mess hall, simply because I was of a different race. I know, I sound like I was some kind of hick, right off of the farm, and maybe I was. However, it goes to the point that I am leading up to.
Coming at it from another angle, have you ever noticed that grade school children will play with anyone, be friends with anyone, and the idea of race never crosses their minds? It’s not until later, as they get older and undergo “diversity training” that they begin to think that there might be some differences between people after all.
The point that both of these arguments are meant to show is that human beings, by their very nature, are free of the bonds of separation by race until some ‘do-gooder leftist’ points them out. Then they begin telling them what they shouldn’t do, what they shouldn’t say, and what they shouldn’t think. None of which most people would ever contemplate doing, saying, or thinking until after it was suggested to them.
I often wonder if the minorities of the 1950’s would even recognize the word ‘racist’ as it is being thrown around today. I suspect they would be as confused as we are at its application. Of course, it’s a word that is reserved for the sole use of the left and never directed at themselves but at people with different political viewpoints.
So maybe we should take a look at what is racist and what is not, as it pertains to Webster’s definition. We’ll analyze the situation in a way that the left cannot analyze anything, without emotion and feelings. In other words, we’ll examine it factually.
Would it be racist for a person to imitate the speech patterns or mannerisms of a particular minority, even if they do so in a room full of people? Joe Biden will be relieved to know that the answer is no. He probably had his doubts after he addressed a group of black supporters by adopting his best southern drawl and informed them that Republicans “are gonna put yall back in chains”.
Would it be racist to refer to young, black men as “super-predators” and suggest that the remedy was to “bring them to heel”? Not according to Webster’s definition. I’m sure Hillary Clinton will be relieved to know that she’s off the hook even though those comments were hers, while she was First Lady.
Here’s another one. Could we point our finger in horror and scream “racist!” at the top of our lungs if someone said that a few years ago, President Obama “would have been getting us coffee”? Nope. That lets Bill Clinton out of progressive exile for his 2008 comments.
We could go on and on for pages but the point has been made, I think. In none of these cases was there evidence that any one of these speakers had a deep-seated, unshakeable “belief” that race is the primary determinate of human traits and capacities. Most people would agree that they were in bad taste but nobody can say that the described belief was present when the words were said.
In fact, according to the definition, it would be very difficult to stick anyone with that label. How in the world would I know what your true beliefs are, or you mine, without a very long discussion or a lot of written evidence? We can say with some safety that the fundamental tenants of the KKK are racist because they’ve been written quite clearly and spoken about often. We could safely say that Adolph Hitler falls into that camp as well, but does it apply to your neighbor who likes to tell ‘off color jokes’ to his buddies when he drinks PBR. Again, not according to the definition.
Here’s a harder one. Is it racist to go into the inner cities every four years and promise large groups of minorities that you are going to make things better if they’ll vote for you (then create policies that actually harm them)? No, it just makes you a career politician (and most likely a democrat).
So with those studies I think we can quickly jump ahead and surmise that General Flynn is not going to re-segregate the military, Trump does not hate Hispanics because he promises to control the borders and anyone disagreeing with President Obama’s policies is not racist.
The left loves the word “racist”. So far they have applied it to every cabinet position that Donald Trump has filled and have used it on him so often I don’t think that anyone could ever get an accurate count. The media takes up the same cry toward anyone who does not fall into line with their beliefs because they both rely on the same playbook. When all else fails, use the “R” word.
This expanded definition racism is just as much alive overseas as it is at home, in the US. This is evident from the reaction of not only the left but also foreign nations, when now, President-Elect Trump suggested a ban on immigration from terrorist-harboring nations. Although this is clearly a national security position in the eyes of the majority, many foreign nations have declared the proposal to be racist. Yet, the definition makes no mention of religion as an element of racism and migrants are of varied ethnic origins. So how can this position be classified as racist?
The truth is that the immigrants who have been granted access to the West, such as in Germany, where the UN estimates there are more than 6,300,000 of them roaming free, have proven that open borders and unrestricted movement are not the answer. Reuters reported that according to their source within the BKA federal police, refugees from Syria are linked to 69,000 crimes within Germany in the first quarter alone. This is clearly not a racial problem but a one of security.
In the UK, which presumably did not want to be seen as ‘racist’ any more than the Germans, there are 897 Syrians being held for crimes as of this summer (07/2016). The UK government has been denying claims that it attempted to cover up these stats, and chief among the crimes committed was rape. I suppose that this should come as no real surprise given the Islamic view on women and the way that they are treated in the Middle East, but it would seem that western females are now paying the highest price for Europe’s anti-racist posturing.
While the definition of racism seems to be ever-expanding, it has not expanded so far as to include white people. While the United States has gone to great lengths to define many of the crimes against minorities as “Hate Crimes”, it would seem that there is no equivalent comparison to that when it is minorities who commit the crimes against white people. The amount of evidence uncovered in these cases that might show a particular criminal hates white people and singles them out as victims make no difference.
If you ask a liberal why racism cannot apply to white people, they will tell you that it is because white people have all of the power and the privilege in society, therefore they cannot possibly be victims of racism. You see, this is where everyone agrees that the expansion of the word racism must stop. It must stop before everybody is subject to the same litmus test. If everyone is judged the same, the left knows that they may find that they fall quite a bit short of their own rhetoric.
It remains to be seen what ramifications our society will have forced upon it by the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency but I would like to make a prediction on one of them right now. Over the last two years, we have heard the word “racist” applied to everybody and everything so often that it has lost its potency as a warning. I honestly don’t think people even listen when they hear the word anymore, I know I don’t. I can honestly say I am as sick of the “R” word as I am of hearing people use the word “so” as a qualifier for every emotion in the English language. “I am so over the word racist!”
There is danger here as well, though. Just like the little boy who cried wolf too often, one day we may actually have a bonafide, confirmed racist running for office and nobody will listen to the screams of those who try to point it out.
Words like racism, child-molester, and bigot have a great deal in common with a .357 magnum. You’d better be certain before you pull that trigger because once that round heads down range, there’s no calling it back. Everybody reading this knows that if you spend too much time on the range, you’ll do one of two things. You’ll either put on hearing protection or you’ll go deaf to the all of the gunshots around you.
Like what you read?
Then you're gonna love my free PDF, 20 common survival items, 20 uncommon survival uses for each. That's 400 total uses for these innocent little items!
Just enter your primary e-mail below to get your link. This will also subscribe you to my newsletter so you stay up-to-date with everything: new articles, ebooks, products and more!
By entering your email, you agree to subscribe to the Modern Survival Online newsletter. We will not spam you.