The Term “Everything is Racist” is Racist

There are some folks out there who don’t believe that Critical Race Theory exists.  (This despite the fact that many organizations have unapologetically come forward admitting that it does.)  Others believe it’s just “teaching our history.”  (This despite the fact that we’ve been “teaching our history,” more or less, warts and all, at least since I was in first grade, 36 years ago.)  But I get it.  It’s a subjective term and hard to define.  So let’s get rid of the hard-to-define terms and go with some hard, factual examples.

This particular example doesn’t come from the education sphere, but it does show how race (which, as a reminder, is a made-up construct — we all belong to only one race: the human race) has been “weaponized.”  And when everything is racist, nothing is racist.

It involves two “minorities” (again, I don’t even know what that particular term really means, but it’s what the left would like us to focus on, so I’ll play the left’s game for the purposes of this example and point it out), Lorena Gonzales, a Hispanic woman, and Bruce Harrell, a half-black, half-Japanese man.

The two are running for mayor of Seattle.  Harrell said something a number of years ago when the gay white mayor at the time was accused by numerous men of child sexual molestation.  (I don’t care how much pigment is in your skin or whom you’re attracted to, but since this is all about identity politics and that man was elected largely because he was the “gay candidate,” I figure I’ll include it in the narrative.)

Before all the facts had come to light and that mayor had resigned in disgrace after it was clear the allegations weren’t just “a homophobic attack trying to paint all gay men as child sex abusers,” Harrell came to his defense by speaking the unspeakable — namely, pointing out that we should, gasp, follow due process and not jump to any conclusions.Top Articles By American ThinkerRead More

People Notice When the Elites Lienull

Because of Harrell’s unspeakable comment, Gonzalez has launched a campaign ad using those and other things he’s said out of context as well as having some other people insinuate that he is a “rape apologist.”

Dirty politics is nothing new.  What is fairly new is immediately defaulting to “YOU’RE A RACIST!!!”  In this case, according to those deemed worthy to judge these things, Gonzalez is a racist because, apparently, there’s some racist trope about black men being rapists, and Harrell is apparently black.  (Not that I’ve ever given it any thought, but when I saw this article and was forced to think about his race, because I’ve known of Harrell for a number of years, my immediate thought was, “Isn’t he Japanese?”)  It can’t be that Gonzalez is just playing dirty politics that has nothing to do with Harrell’s skin color — although it is good to know where black/Japanese men rank compared to Hispanic women the next time I’m playing “intersectionality bingo.”

To bring this back to the beginning, CRT views all of history and socio-political relations through the lens of race.  As I heard one proponent of CRT quip, “racism in America is like a pie; it’s baked right in.”

If someone cuts you off in traffic and you happen to be black, he’s a racist.  If you don’t get a job, it’s because the company is racist.  The disproportionate number of black people in prison can only be attributed to racism.  There can’t possibly be another explanation.  It can’t be that the person who cut you off is a bad driver or rushing home because his wife just went into labor.  It can’t be that the other person was just more qualified, did a better job at interviewing, or provided better references.  It can’t be that over 90% of prison inmates grew up without a father.

If your opponent attacks you in an admittedly dirty way, it can’t be that she’s just doing what politicians have been doing since the dawn of time and just trying to get a shot in any way she can.  It has to be that she’s racist.

It’s gotten so bad that it’s almost comical.  The L.A. Times ran a column calling Larry Elder “the black face of white supremacy.”  “#UncleTim” trended on Twitter after Senator Tim Scott gave the response to the State of the Union address.  Joe Biden told voters “you ain’t black” if you won’t vote for him.

Examples like this make it clear that this has zero to do with race and everything to do with pushing a statist agenda.  Those who get in line are everything that is good and holy in the world.  Those who don’t are racist.

We get what we focus on.  If we want to be divided by race and all the other fun little boxes those who seek to control us are trying to put us in, we’ll get those boxes and that division.  Or we could follow the words of Morgan Freeman and just stop talking about it.  There used to be rampant discrimination against Italians, Irish, and Catholics.  Joe Biden’s Catholicism was barely mentioned during the 2020 election.

If we don’t seek to stop division, it will never be stopped.  Let’s say we “solve racism.”  People will just find another reason to divide themselves.  (Read “The Butter Battle Book” by Dr. Seuss, which was an allegory for the then-raging Cold War but involved two groups at war over something as silly as whether they ate their toast butter side up or butter side down.  Considering some of the silly things we see fights break out over, I’m not sure that would qualify as satire anymore.)

So the next time someone says something you perceive as mean or unfair, or cuts you off in traffic, or you lose out on a job or a table at a restaurant to someone else who happens to be of a different ethnicity, religion, sex, etc., you can throw yourself a pity party; call up the ACLU, NAACP, and whatever other acronym you can think of; and sue everyone in sight over the great tragedy — or you can think, “Hmm, that person must be having a bad day, or maybe he just has different opinions from mine, and it doesn’t have a thing to do with the color of his skin or any other superficial difference that exists, and maybe I should see what I can do to bless him or what common ground we can find.”

| Print| Email

Around The Web

FOLLOW US ON

American Thinker on Facebook
American Thinker on Twitter
American Thinker on MeWe

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives

About Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | RSS Syndication © American Thinker 2021

The People Calling You Racist are Racists

Google has reportedly launched an “antiracism” initiative that claims American capitalism is “white supremacist.”

Only a racist would equate capitalism–economic freedom–with white supremacy. Because when you claim that some races can flourish under economic freedom while some races cannot, you are in fact being racist. It takes an individualist–the total opposite of a racist–to embrace meritocracy and dispense with all concerns about race.

Today’s real racists are those fixated on race, the pompous and self-described progressives. They project their own racism onto people who cherish freedom and liberty. In the process, they are bringing down all freedom and ushering in a world where people of all races will suffer from stagnation, poverty and despair. It’s so utterly irrational, so wrong and so tragically unnecessary.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

White Privilege is a Scam to Advance Racism

There’s so much talk of “privilege”. The mere term is used to invoke guilt. Privilege refers to something you didn’t EARN — something that was handed to you.

In other words, if you achieve a lot of success, you are “privileged”. But how is it privilege if you earned it? If Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi become billionaires through the abuse of power and redistribution of wealth, then I get how it’s privilege.

But if your commercial enterprise makes you a billionaire, you earned it. Biden and Pelosi didn’t earn anything. But most of us do honestly earn what we produce.

To make matters worse, we’re now attaching the concept of “privilege” to race. If you’re of one race (we’re told), you’re privileged and automatically undeserving of whatever success or happiness you enjoy; if you’re of a different race (we’re told), then you’re automatically and always deserving of achievement and success.

It doesn’t matter if you call it “progressive”; this kind of thinking is still racism. Racism is racism. RACE has nothing to do with achievement or failure. Your actions and choices do. The minute you claim (or imply) that race determines your moral status, YOU ARE A RACIST.

Our culture cannot and will not go on with this irrationality. We’re falling apart, and gradually collapsing into anarchy and division. Ideas have consequences, and rotten ideas lead to bad things. The billions of dollars of Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Gates or Bezos cannot turn falsehood into truth; or vicious prejudice into enlightenment. If the majority continue to accept this kind of thinking, or even pretend they do, it’s going to end in disaster. It always has.

Change your thinking, people: While you still can.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project

The 1619 Project was developed by Nikole Hannah-Jones of the New York Times that supposedly focuses on the cause(s) and consequences of slavery, etc, but does this “project” miss the target intentionally or otherwise?

Before anything like this “project” (opposed by President Donald Trump and numerous other politicians, educators, etc, across the United States) should have even been attempted, much less potentially taught within classrooms in high school or beyond, were the times before the 1600’s explored or even much less considered? Those origins could be covered in a “1400’s Project” that deals with how the slave trade began in the 1400’s with African tribes who collaborated with Europeans in the slave trade. A further examination of the slave trade could be brought about by delving into the rampant slavery conducted by Muslim areas of the Middle East even before the 1400’s and the degree to which they enslaved both blacks and whites. And did any nations in the Middle East before the 700’s-1000’s AD engage in a slave trade, even during BC times?

Pertaining to the slave trade and the 1600’s, has an in-depth and comprehensive analysis been conducted and published looking beyond merely which nations were involved and perusing which specific companies were involved in any way or capacity (primarily, secondarily or even tangentially), who owned the slave ships, where were the slave houses in Europe or across the ocean located, on what days was the selling of slaves conducted, and on and on?

Pertaining to CRT and/or any of its proponents, how could they, if they were to say so, possibly declare that enslaving others is indicative of only one race and ignore it being a problem potentially found within all humans of the past?

What the George Floyd Matter Reminds Us About Leftism

We have to remember a few things. Leftists do not care about justice. Justice applies to the individual. Leftist notions of “social justice” sacrifice the individual to society (in theory) and to the brutality of the state (in practice). Leftists do not care about racism. They ARE racists. They suggest that race is the defining and only important attribute of an individual; that the individual has no identity, no freedom of choice, no unique characteristics — only DNA. THIS IS RACISM.

Leftism is not a mixture of right and wrong, or good and bad, as most philosophies and ideologies are. Leftism, especially the Communist-woke type overwhelmingly dominating our culture today, is raw, undiluted, uncompromising and irredeemable evil.

Also, from Tucker Carlson:

It’s that simple: violent protests get results. That’s a threat, obviously. But it’s also, unfortunately true. Rioting does work. When you burn cities, you get what you want. You get rich from corporate handouts. You get the jury verdicts you’ve demanded. Rioters know this very well, even if the rest of us won’t admit it. By allowing Wendy’s to be torched and Macy’s to be looted and police stations to be destroyed, the rest of us have relinquished our power as citizens and instead handed it to the most violent, unreasonable, and least productive people in the country. Why would we do something like this? Maybe historians will be able to explain it. In the meantime prepare for the next phase. But, once again, don’t kid yourself. Derek Chauvin’s conviction didn’t settle accounts. It merely increased the debt.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

How Will Decolonizing the Curriculum Help the Poor and Dispossessed?

February 8th, 2021, the Students of Color Liberation Front at the University of Michigan made a series of anti-racist demands, including a call to “Decolonize the University of Michigan’s pedagogies and campus broadly.” This is a recent manifestation of the “decolonize the university” movement, which has been making similar demands over the past few years at most Western academic institutions. The movement has called for universities to decolonize curricula and math, to privilege “other ways of knowing,” and to #DisruptTexts from the Western canon, among other demands. The Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford (RMFO) campaign explains that decolonization aims to “remedy the highly selective narrative of traditional academia—which frames the West as sole producers of universal knowledge—by integrating subjugated and local epistemologies” thereby creating “a more intellectually rigorous, complete academy.”

Demands for decolonized epistemology stem from legitimate grievances about colonial era atrocities. Some activists propose helpful suggestions for improving access to higher education for students in the global South, especially in STEM fields. For example, in Decolonise the University (2018), Pat Lockley promotes open access resources, including courses, publishing, data, lab, scholarship programs, and research exchanges. In the same volume, William Jamal Richardson makes an excellent case for an increased focus on “undone science”—areas of research “identified by social movements and other civil society organizations as having potentially broad social benefit.”

However, everyone should be deeply concerned about the serious damage to knowledge advancement that will occur if activists accomplish their goal to decolonize the epistemological foundation of science. During the 2016 #FeesMustFall protests at the University of Cape Town, a #ScienceMustFall activist explained her views on decolonizing science. A video was taken, which Emeritus Professor Tim Crowe analyzed in detail. The activist “derided science as enshrined unshakable ‘truth’ developed and driven as ‘Western modality.’” Therefore, “the whole thing should be scratched off” and replaced with an Afrocentric science.

This is a total misrepresentation of science, which doesn’t assert unshakable truths, but provisional ones; and which doesn’t belong to the West, but to the world. Science is a method for inquiry—guided by intellectual humility, skepticism, careful observation, questioning, hypothesis formulation, prediction, and experimentation—that is open to everyone, that aims to advance knowledge and improve the lives of all. While indigenous epistemologies are certainly worthy of study, and valuable in their own right, such epistemologies should not be promoted as superior to, or as a replacement for, Enlightenment epistemologies. This is not least because Enlightenment thinkers—most notably the founder of modern science Francis Bacon—articulated the intellectual foundation for extremely rapid improvements in global living standards.

The intellectual genealogy of decolonization demands

Why has decolonization become an increasingly popular rallying cry for social justice activists? The framework for decolonization demands stems from Critical Theory, specifically postcolonial and postmodern feminist critiques of the Enlightenment. During the “Science Wars” of the 1990s, between scientific realists and postmodernists, Sandra Harding, Carolyn Merchant, and Evelyn Fox Keller condemned Francis Bacon for what they deemed misogynistic sexual metaphors. Although they could have critiqued Bacon’s writing and left it at that, these feminists went much further, arguing that misogyny is at the heart of modern science. In 1995, Alan Soble made a convincing case that postmodern feminist readings of Bacon are based on misquotations, passages taken out of context, projection, and scholarly uncharitability. I would add that these critiques are wholly contingent upon the technological advancements produced by applying the epistemology advocated for by thinkers like Bacon. Imagine the short-sightedness of encountering a metaphor you dislike in a 17th century philosophical treatise, then proclaiming that the entire epistemological basis of modern civilization is inherently flawed—all while typing on a computer powered by reliable electricity, in a stable country, where you’ve never gone hungry.

Students promoting the decolonize the university movement make some reasonable demands, among them the integration of more Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) authors in the curriculum and hiring more BIPOC faculty members. However, the activists also make a more radical demand: epistemology itself must be decolonized by becoming decentered from the European Enlightenment tradition. In the introduction to Decolonising the University, the editors call for completely restructuring the knowledge systems of Western universities because, within them, “colonial intellectuals developed theories of racism, popularised discourses that bolstered support for colonial endeavours and provided ethical and intellectual grounds for the dispossession, oppression and domination of colonised subjects” (p.5). The editors do not mention that many Western universities were founded several centuries before European colonization began, including the universities of Bologna (1088), Oxford (1096), Salamanca (1134), Paris (1257), and Cambridge (1209), to name a few.

Lest one observe that the colonial period has passed, the editors assert that Western universities continue to “reproduce and justify colonial hierarchies” (p.6). But is providing intellectual grounds for colonialism all that Western universities have done, even now? The Decolonising the University scholar-activists think so. Rosalba Icaza and Rolando Vázquez assert that “movements to decolonise the university are fighting the ‘arrogant ignorance’ that is produced by a system of knowledge that is Eurocentric.” Western epistemology, they argue, claims to have “universal validity, while remaining oblivious to the epistemic diversity of the world” (p.112).

Similarly, Dalia Gebrial attacks the Enlightenment for having “forged and reproduced modalities of colonial thinking,” and for “racialising” the “values of reason and objective knowledge pursuit as white and European” (pp.27-8). Gebrial takes issue with how “the Enlightenment is geographically mapped as a self-contained, European project, rather than constituted through and alongside imperialism and slavery.” Gebrial, however, is silent on the question of whether non-Western empires that engaged in imperialism and slavery (for example, Barbary enslavement of Europeans) also have inherently flawed epistemologies that require decolonization. Neither Gebrial, nor any of the other Decolonising the University authors, mention that an estimated 40.3 million people are enslaved now.

Moreover, the scholar-activists mention only one instance of non-Western colonialism: the “profound impact of Japanese imperialism and Japan’s history of fascism” (p.72). However, they do not call for the decolonization of Japanese epistemology and universities. The contributors are also silent about Chinese territorial expansion, which has affected East Asia for the past four thousand years; the volume does not call for the decolonization of Chinese epistemology. Nor do they state that universities in the many regions colonized by the Ottoman Empire must be decolonized. And these are just a few examples of a much longer list of non-Western regions that have engaged in colonialism.

While some Western thinkers within universities did indeed justify colonialism, the implication that all Western universities, and their epistemological foundations, can be characterized as colonial enablers of dispossession, oppression, and domination, is a radical oversimplification.

Moreover, the assertion that the epistemology of Western universities is entirely a product of Western hegemony is an insult to every non-Western person who has contributed to knowledge production within Western universities. Decolonization activists demonize the Enlightenment, creating straw man arguments, which they propose to solve with “decolonial epistemology.” But what is decolonial epistemology? Although scholar-activists make a variety of recommendations, they all share similarities. I will address one proposal as a representative sample.

Decolonial epistemology and a recuperation of Francis Bacon

Decolonial activists, in their understandable anger over Western colonial injustices—provoked by Critical Theorist scholar-activists—are unlikely to read Francis Bacon. He can be dismissed as “pale, male (and often stale),” per the Decolonising the University’s editors’ formulation. Yet, decolonization activists might be surprised to find that Bacon makes strong arguments for much of what they demand. In Decolonising the University, Icaza and Vázquez identify three aspects of decolonial epistemology: positionality, relationality, and transitionality. Epistemic practices of positionality reject Enlightenment epistemology, which they characterize as a “closed form” of expertise that presents itself as “ahistorical and universally valid.” By contrast, positionality, an “open” form of expertise, is a “humble” approach in which researchers make the “location of their knowledge an integral part of their doing” (p.119).

In The Great Instauration (1620), one of the most important works of the Enlightenment, Bacon identified humility as his most important virtue: “Wherein if I have made any progress, the way has been opened to me by no other means than the true and legitimate humiliation of the human spirit.” Operating from a position of radical skepticism, Bacon maintained that the information we gather from our senses is a positioned knowledge, unique to the individual observer and not universal: “the testimony and information of the senses bears always a relation to man and not to the universe, and it is altogether a great mistake to assert that our senses are the measure of things.”

Because of these sensory limitations, Bacon recommended a process that we now call the scientific method. This process, which is open to everyone, relies on experimenters publishing their methods so that others can identify errors and correct them. Bacon made it clear that any “phantoms”—a metaphor for unfalsifiable hypotheses—must be rejected:

In every new and rather delicate experiment, although to us it may appear sure and satisfactory, we yet publish the method we employed, that, by the discovery of every attendant circumstance, men may perceive the possibly latent and inherent errors, and be roused to proofs of a more certain and exact nature, if such there be. Lastly, we intersperse the whole with advice, doubts, and cautions, casting out and restraining, as it were, all phantoms by a sacred ceremony and exorcism.

In addition to his cautions about experiments, Bacon urged vigilance about the purpose of knowledge: “we would in general admonish all to consider the true ends of knowledge, and not to seek it for the gratifications of their minds, or for disputation, or that they may despise others, or for emolument, or fame, or power, or such low objeets, but for its intrinsic merit and the purposes of life, and that they would perfect and regulate it by charity.” Bacon’s rejection of self-gratification, hate, fame, and power might gain the approval of 21st century decolonization activists.

Icaza and Vázquez’s second epistemological change, “relationality,” dismisses Enlightenment pedagogy as “authoritarian” and “one-directional.” In contrast, their proposed relational approach “is one in which the diverse backgrounds and the geo-historical positioning of the different participants in the classroom are rendered valuable” (120). This description of Enlightenment epistemology and pedagogy as “authoritarian,” “one-directional,” and failing to value diverse participants is uncharitable, to say the least. Bacon was completely anti-authoritarian; his epistemology was an explicit rejection of the knowledge deemed authoritative at his time. As Bacon explained, “That wisdom which we have derived principally from the Greeks is but like the boyhood of knowledge.” His purpose was to “commence a total reconstruction of sciences, arts, and all human knowledge, raised upon the proper foundations.”

Rather than asserting his own authority or seeking to impose it on others in a one-directional manner, Bacon discussed how he depended on assistance from others to advance knowledge benefiting “the human race,” a phrase he used five times in the prefatory section alone. Bacon bemoaned his ignorance about knowledge advancement in different locations: “we are far from knowing all that in the matter of sciences and arts has in various ages and places been brought to light and published, much less all that has been by private persons secretly attempted and stirred.” Bacon highlighted how knowledge production is an open form of expertise that happens in diverse locations.

Icaza and Vázquez’s final proposed epistemological change, “transitionality,” rejects “the abstract position of knowledge” and enables “students to bridge the epistemic border between the classroom and society.” The “recognition of difference as enriching for teaching and learning” is connected to “knowledge that has been humbled” and “recognises its own limits” (120). Since transitionality is related to teaching, it is fortunate that Bacon explained his pedagogical philosophy:

And the same humility which I use in inventing I employ likewise in teaching. For I do not endeavor either by triumphs of confutation, or pleadings of antiquity, or assumption of authority, or even by the veil of obscurity, to invest these inventions of mine with any majesty; which might easily be done by one who sought to give luster to his own name rather than light to other men’s minds. I have not sought (I say) nor do I seek either to force or ensnare men’s judgments, but I lead them to things themselves and the concordances of things, that they may see for themselves what they have, what they can dispute, what they can add and contribute to the common stock.

Bacon did not articulate an abstract position of knowledge. Instead, he emphasized what decolonial activists call for: knowledge that humbly recognizes its own limits. Bacon urged his students to think for themselves and participate in knowledge production. His pedagogy valued other perspectives because he implored his students to dispute bad ideas and to contribute their own. Additionally, Bacon affirmed the relevance of knowledge beyond the classroom. He wrote that he sought the sciences “not arrogantly in the little cells of human wit, but with reverence in the greater world.”

What is to be done?

The path to progress is definitely not paved by destroying the epistemological framework bequeathed to us by the Enlightenment. Yet it is important to understand why many young people are more attracted to social justice-based decolonization demands than to Enlightenment era intellectual advancements. Social justice ideology appeals to young adults’ desire to establish their identity, independent from their parents, and an ideology that represents itself as subversive is compelling. Also, as young people become aware of injustices, they are understandably captivated by a movement that represents itself as the most righteous way to advocate for justice.

For these reasons, it is necessary to make Enlightenment ideas not merely palatable, but inspiring. Educators must respond to decolonization activists’ arguments, then explain why Enlightenment ideas are a better foundation for improving people’s lives all over the world. Philanthropists are needed to fund a movement that popularizes an informed understanding of Enlightenment era scientific and political advancements. This movement should use online platforms and its curricula should have students read influential Enlightenment thinkers, in their own words, not only misleading representations promulgated by Critical Theory scholar-activists, as they do now.

This movement should explain how Enlightenment ideas accelerated global knowledge advancement. It is important to center the voices of immigrants to Western countries who have been drawn to the West for its liberal values, and for the wealth generation and scientific advancements produced by Enlightenment epistemology. People should create video and written testimonies of immigrants discussing their experiences in their home countries—specifically the lack of Enlightenment principles—and why these principles are attractive because they have been shown to work.

It is also essential to underscore that demands for decolonization in Western universities are the product of affluence. What do you think that impoverished people in the global South care about more: decolonizing Western epistemology or increasing their prosperity? While indigenous people are probably proud of their epistemology, I would bet that the majority care more about meeting their material needs. Decolonization activists might consider how changing epistemology in Western universities will solve the main problems experienced by most people in the world, including extreme poverty, rampant political corruption, substandard infrastructure, inadequate police, and dysfunctional judicial systems. The political advancement of the Enlightenment, liberalism, provides a framework for solving these problems by establishing limited, republican government; enforcing the rule of law; and protecting individual rights and liberties, especially freedom of speech, so that people can have honest discussions about problems and work toward solutions—without descending into authoritarianism and violence.

People in the West must ensure that our educators teach the epistemology bequeathed to us by Enlightenment intellectuals so that we continue to advance and prosper. In the 17th century, Francis Bacon lamented people in his time who did little to improve knowledge, remarking that such people “made a passage for themselves and their own opinions by pulling down and demolishing former ones; and yet all their stir has but little advanced the matter, since their aim has been not to extend philosophy and the arts in substance and value, but only to change doctrines and transfer the kingdom of opinions to themselves.” This strikes me as the most precise description of decolonial activists that I have seen. Be forewarned: decolonization demands won’t stop at the university gates. As Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang state, decolonization is not a metaphor; it is a struggle over dispossession, the repatriation of indigenous land, and the seizing of imperial wealth. If you have any European heritage, the activists will soon demand that you be decolonized, too.

Samantha Jones is a pseudonym for a dissident Women’s Studies PhD. Her writing has also appeared in New Discourses.

No, the Derek Chauvin Trial isn’t a Referendum on American Racism

Since the death of George Floyd, our esteemed media, as well as their Democratic allies, have suggested that Floyd’s alleged murder is representative of broader American white supremacy, that Floyd’s experience with law enforcement is indicative of how American police pose an existential threat to black Americans. They have offered no evidence for this proposition. Not a shred of evidence has been presented to suggest that former police officer Derek Chauvin’s actions the day of Floyd’s death were motivated by race. Not a shred of evidence has been presented to suggest that black Americans live at threat of extermination from whites or police officers: As of 2013, according to Reuters, a black person’s chances of being murdered by a white person were 5 in 1 million, and according to The Washington Post database of police shootings, as of 2019, a black person’s chances of being shot by the police while unarmed were approximately 3 in 10 million.

But facts don’t matter when you’re pressing forward a narrative.

Now that Chauvin is on trial for Floyd’s murder, the facts will once again become secondary to the narrative. Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., said that police reform is dependent on Chauvin’s conviction: “If there was ever a case that you can just not argue, it is this one. This trial has got to come out the right way, and we have to deliver.” Floyd family lawyer Benjamin Crump stated, “Today starts a landmark trial that will be a referendum on how far America has come in its quest for equality and justice for all.”

That’s simply not true.

Bass, Crump and the rest of the establishment media assume that Chauvin’s case is clear-cut — that nobody could possibly vote to acquit. The fact pattern, however, presents serious issues for the prosecution. Chauvin has been charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. All three charges are a challenge.

The prosecution first has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Floyd’s death was caused by Chauvin’s actions. But the autopsy report shows that Floyd had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system and had a serious heart problem, and that Chauvin’s neck hold did not in fact cause damage to Floyd’s trachea. That means that while Chauvin’s neck restraint may have contributed to Floyd’s death by ratcheting up his blood pressure, for example, it’s uncertain that it caused Floyd’s death more than, say, the excited delirium from which Floyd may have already been suffering.

Second-degree murder requires that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin unintentionally killed Floyd while committing a felony — in this case, felony assault. But felony assault requires “intentional” infliction of bodily harm — that Chauvin wanted to hurt Floyd, not just use a suppression tactic already greenlit by the Minneapolis Police Department.

Third-degree murder — depraved-heart murder — doesn’t actually seem to fit the crime here, since it requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin acted in a way “eminently dangerous to others.” Others — plural. Usually, depraved-heart murder applies to someone who fires a gun into a crowd, not a person who targets an individual.

Second-degree manslaughter requires that the prosecution prove that Chauvin acted with “gross negligence.” But such gross negligence would have to show that Chauvin should have known that his behavior might cause Floyd’s death — an unlikely expectation, since the Minneapolis Police Department actively taught neck holds of the type Chauvin used, and which Chauvin applied only after Floyd resisted arrest and refused to be confined to the back seat of a police car.

The Chauvin case, then, is a legally complex one. But such complexities have been abandoned in favor of narrative. Should Chauvin be acquitted, we are likely to hear that America has proved its racism once again. The only thing that has already been proved, however, is that the “America as white supremacist” lie will remain the media’s dominant narrative, no matter the data.

Ben Shapiro

Democrats and Racism

Mea culpa. There is structural and systemic racism in the United States. The inconvenient truth is that it is perpetrated, propagated, and perpetuated by the Left. Birthed in the cesspool of radical Left university departments, demagogic terms like white privilege, whiteness, or white fragility are part of a poisonous and dangerous ideology that is meant to divide rather than unite. Critical race theory and racial equality can be summed up in a single statement: if you are white, you are racist and if you are a person of color, you are oppressed.

The combination of white guilt plus black victimhood is especially toxic. Our self-anointed “Uniter-in-Chief” Joe Biden has jumped on the race hustler bandwagon under the guise of diversity training with his recent decision to rescind an executive order from former President Trump that would have put restrictions on advancing racial equality by limiting diversity training for federal government employees and its contractors. In other words, more identity politics. Unfortunately, this isn’t an anomaly for Democrats. This isn’t a blip on the Democratic arc of history bending towards justice. Judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character has a rich history in the Democratic Party.

Democrats have been solely responsible for defending slavery, starting the Civil War, opposing reconstruction, lynching blacks, founding the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow laws and segregation, poll taxes and literacy tests. The Party voted against the 13th amendment (end slavery), 14th amendment (black citizenship), and 15th amendment (black right to vote), filibustered the 1960 Civil Rights Act (elimination of poll taxes), and tried to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 60 days, the longest filibuster in Senate history.

The Civil War wasn’t North v. South, as highlighted in the Lincoln-Douglas debates in the northern state of Illinois. It was a Democrat v. Republican battle. The infamous Dred Scott decision (blacks were property) in 1857 was a Supreme Court vote of 7 Democrat justices for, and 2 Republican justices against. By 1900, more than 20 black Republicans had served in Congress. Democrats did not elect a single black congressman until 1935. And every black senator until 1979 was a Republican. When federal troops withdrew from the South after reconstruction ended, Democrats’ white supremacy laws re-emerged with a vengeance enforced by the paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party, the KKK, which was used to suppress blacks from voting Republican.

Democrats are also the party of abortion. Planned Parenthood, founded by eugenics racist Margaret Sanger was created to eliminate the “undesirables” and that continues today where there are more abortions in NYC of black babies than are born.

Democrat Woodrow Wilson re-segregated many federal agencies and screened the racist film Birth of a Nation at the White House. Democrat FDR refused to invite four-time gold medalist Jessie Owen (a staunch Republican) to the White House (only invited white athletes) and interned 120,000 Japanese Americans. Eisenhower re-integrated the military and forced the integration of schools in Little Rock against the wishes of Democrat governor Orval Faubus. The racist Democrat LBJ started the welfare state and said “I’ll have those n#@!rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years,” highlighting the fact that Democrats care about black votes but not blacks. The welfare state has decimated the black family with 77 percent of children growing up fatherless. JFK first mentioned Affirmative Action in 1961 but it was Nixon who passed it in 1971.

Democrat race hustlers Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton foment black victimhood. The party promotes racial identity politics because of the abject failure of its policies which continues to hurt black people and shows its continued contempt for blacks. Opposition to school choice keeps blacks in failing schools. Politically correct policing has left blacks as victims to violent crimes. In 2019, 9 unarmed blacks (the number is 19 for white people) were killed by police while more than 2,000 blacks were murdered by other blacks in 2018 and Democrats have had monopoly control of ALL the cities we hear and see about black plight: Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit..

If Democrats really wanted to help blacks, they would treat abortion as a tragedy, support school choice, work to end the failed welfare state, drop the idea of defunding police, promote advancement based on merit and character not the amount of melanin in your skin, end open borders which flood the market with cheap labor and steal jobs from black Americans, end their support of minimum wage laws which lead to higher black unemployment, and end their social justice mantra which is equality by group not the individual, anathema to America’s founding principles. I know, wishful thinking. So, whenever you hear Democrats calling Republicans racists, just know there is a simple psychological term for this: projection.

The Wisdom of Ayn Rand (on Racism)

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.