When a government, teacher, business, etc., focus on race as the only issue, racial tensions will increase, and racial problems will abound. Sort of like focusing on chronic pain makes the pain worse; focusing upon race produces racial issues. Worse, imagined racial issues will create a reality where those issues are alive and well, for race is the only topic.
Of a truth, often spoken of in these articles, every race man can create to segregate humans into sub-categories, have experienced periods of ostracization, enslavement, racial hatred, and racial segregation. As a person who identifies his race as AMERICAN and not a color, like a box of Crayolas, I have witnessed man’s inhumanity to man too often to care what race you choose to be. I have met blonde hair/blue-eyed individuals who report their race as black, blacks saying they are white, adding any other color or racial denomination they desired. The same examples become apparent to others who care to look and listen, for the United Nations affirms that race is a choice and not a biological component of heritage. When you have met your first Vietnamese-African-Anglo-American Indian, who practices Zen-Buddhism-Catholicism/Judaism, come find me, and we can talk about the racial, ethnic, and religious designations people choose!
In 1964, Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Provisions of the civil rights act forbade discrimination based on sex and race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The Act prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs. It also strengthened the enforcement of voting rights and the desegregation of schools. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 continues to resonate in America. Passage of the Act ended the application of “Jim Crow” laws, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson. The Court held that racial segregation purported to be “separate but equal” was constitutional. Congress eventually expanded the Civil Rights Act to strengthen the enforcement of fundamental civil rights.
Effectively ending racial discrimination in America, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was approved by a more significant percentage of Republicans than Democrats. Yet, the Democrats continue to claim they are the banner under which all voices are equal. While I do not want this article to take on any partisan political banter, the facts are essential to the history of how America adopted the Civil Rights Acts into law. As always, if you desire more information, feel free to check the links embedded.
Critical Race Theory (CRT)
Hungarian philosopher Georg Lukacs, the neo-Marxist progenitor of critical race theory, once described Critical Theory as being “on the edge of an abyss, of nothingness, of absurdity.” Critical theory is an approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture to reveal and challenge power structures—with origins in sociology and literary criticism, arguing that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors. Critical race theory is a philosophy that views everything in public and private life—from the government to business to art and anything in between—through the prism of racial identities.
The worldview is based on critical theory, which originated in Germany after World War I and combined the Marxist belief of an oppressed working class with an opaque description of relative truth. The philosophy swept through universities in the US in the 20th century. In the 1960s, theorists claimed American law was systemically oppressive, creating critical legal theory. By the 1980s, theorists added race, giving us critical race theory. One of the originators of critical race theory, Derrick Bell, wrote: “We use a number of different voices, but all recognize that the American social order is maintained and perpetuated by racial subordination.”
According to Derrick Bell, this means that General George Washington was not a great leader; he was a privileged white boy. That would make Frederick Douglass only capable because he was black. Turning Rosa Parks’ courageous stand for racial justice and equality into nothing but a gender card play. When everything is subjugated to race, nothing else matters but race.
Racism, Racist, and Racial – The Story of Three Adjectives
Racism is a noun defined as “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.” “Discrimination or prejudice based on race.” “The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.” Racist is a proper adjective and is defined as “having, reflecting, or fostering the belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” Racial is also an adjective and is described as something “existing or occurring between races,” or “relating to or based upon race.”
Interestingly, racism is a noun, not an adjective, even though many desire racism to be an adjective. The difference being that an adjective describes a noun, and a noun does not, and cannot, describe an action by a person, place, or thing. Thus, you can have racist individuals, but racism is a noun; it cannot be expressed enough; every race in history has experienced periods of being the aggressor and the oppressed through race. Worse, when discussing race, racial history, and racial descriptions, plasticity has evolved to continue to allow those desiring an excuse to use racial prejudice as a reason for their actions.
For example, when a store was robbed, the robber claimed that he only robbed the store because the owner was racist. Intimating that if the owner had not been racist, the store would not have been robbed; not a very flattering or valid excuse for robbing a store, perpetuating violence, or acting in a manner behooving a terrorist. Yet, this pattern of thinking is prevalent in many places in the world today.
Digging a little deeper, how does anyone know the store owner was racist or not racist? Just because an accusation is made does not a reality and truth reveal. Having been slandered many times by people accusing me of being racist, I know the veracity of this question. For example, in the US Navy, I was accused of being racist for not showing due consideration to a second-class petty officer speaking ebonics. At the time, I had no idea what ebonics was, and since this petty officer only spoke ebonics on the ship, I had no idea what I was supposed to do differently. But, the petty officer complained to the chief, the chief tore me a new one, and I was left confused and angry.
How can a person tell if something is racist?
Believe it or not, there is an easy test to check for racism. Where is the focus? Using the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Critical Race Theory, we can quickly tell which is racist by the focus or intent of the work. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was designed to end a focus upon race; CRT is designed to exploit race and focus solely upon race as the preeminent separating force in human relations. Thus, CRT is racist, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not. Don’t believe me; look closer at the purpose; CRT has race proudly mentioned in the name, whereas the Civil Rights Act of 1964 focuses on equality under the law of all people.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 aims to place all people on equal legal footings. CRT aims to rip equality under the law to shreds and put people on unequal footing based solely upon race. Worse, since the UN has claimed that race is a choice and not a sub-human categorization mechanism, people can choose to adopt the race that is favored to their advantage when placed upon unequal footing under the law. Thus, how does CRT purpose to halt people from choosing different races to suit their desires for more equal treatment?
© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.