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.
The story is linked in case you missed the news on 
I have not viewed the series; I have barely scraped the surface of the curriculum offered. What I have seen of the curriculum worries me. I call it “whitewashing” history, to glance over the actions of one group to reflect how other groups were treated, with the intent of stirring the racial divides and creating more chasms based on race alone. What I see in this curriculum does nothing to “ … teach students about the rich culture and important contributions of the Asian American community throughout history” or to “combat false stereotypes.” I ran a search engine using the string, “Violent migrant worker strikes, involving Asian people,” and the first item on the list returned originates with the 
Think about this quote for a moment, who are the biggest race hustlers in America? History has taught that when race is the only concern worth knowing people care only about race, to their demise. Focusing on race is the sole reason why I have questioned, and continue to question, the validity of the arguments for National “Name your Favorite Minority” Month celebrations. There are absolutes in this world; focusing solely upon race as a choice, will breed racial tensions as a consequence, is an absolute. Recent history under President Obama reflected this exact issue to the Nth degree, yet nobody wants to have that discussion. Why; because of race!
When your focus is solely upon an individual’s race, race will be the only thing learned, the only lesson absorbed, and the fruit of that lesson are bitter. Have people from various races achieved great things; absolutely, but why should their achievements be diminished by focusing solely upon their race? Why should their achievements only be mentioned during “Name your Favorite Minority” monthly celebrations? Has the 1960s taught us nothing about the character, knowledge, talents, curious minds, and the work performed where race was NEVER an issue? I have books galore in my home; I continue to collect books about famous people of great accomplishment; I have never cared a whit about that person’s sex or gender. Why; because their sex and gender, race, skin color, religion, handicap, or heritage have never been a factor. As a kid, a thrill ran through me when I read the preamble to the US Declaration of Independence:
From the National Archives website, we find the following regarding the Declaration of Independence:
I love words; I was taught from a young age three invaluable lessons:
Consider a term oft used to describe the political left, “Social-Justice Warriors.” Long have I asked my political left-leaning colleagues what this term means, how it applies, and the veracity of the term as a description of societal action. Breaking down the term, we find three definitions taken from Dictionary.com:
Thus, to extrapolate meaning from the definitions, one would conclude a social justice warrior is “a person in society, looking for the social administration of law, who has experience fighting for the proper administration of law.” Yet, the definition from the dictionary for this term is 180-degrees different and is termed derogatory, “a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views.” Those rioting and looting in the streets got there because a social justice warrior enraged the community on an issue that is racist, one-sided, and emotionally driven. Lest it is forgotten, the term being applied to the people driven by emotion to launch protests that become mob violence is derogatory in nature, critically disrespectful of the person calling themselves a social justice warrior. But, the social justice warrior carries this title as if it were a compliment and a badge of the highest esteem.
A recent attack by a social justice warrior regarded the inability of poor black people to have government-issued photo ID, and that without that photo ID, the poor black person would be disenfranchised in exercising voting rights. My response was that holding any person down by race was racist, and the social just warrior preceded to become unhinged. Let us be clear, anytime a person’s race is the sole reason that person, or group of people, cannot take part in something, is racism, and the person espousing that opinionated garbage is racist.
From that day to this, I have been attacked for not seeing race, not being sensitive to the race of others, and refusing to allow a person’s race to be an excuse for poor performance, bad language, and infantile public and private behavior. I remain unapologetic; I am not a racist! I hold myself to the highest standards publicly and privately as my first obligation to society. Without regard to race, color, creed, etc. I hold others to the same standards. I am willing to teach and remain willing to learn as my second obligation to society.
I quickly learned that if any other race of person employed “Ebonics” they were told to speak properly, but there was a pass for black people. When I pointed out this was racism, I was sent up on charges for being disrespectful to see the Commanding Officer. In the US Army, I was the only white person in my squad in S. Korea. I was never invited to squad parties, social get-togethers, or allowed into training. I asked why I was being excluded and was told it was because the squad leader did not understand white people. The command structure supported the exclusion, and I was left without support as a new soldier in the US Army.
In the name of racial equality, America has been taught since the early 1980s that words create problems, and some words cannot be used by “white people.” This behavior is inherently racist and spreads the problems of race, not improving racial relationships. During President Obama’s reign, America learned that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are racist. Fluffernutter sandwiches are racist. But, this is not so, they are sandwiches, food, and delicious. Yet, through plasticization and a social justice warrior, suddenly, a staple of millions of people is now “off-limits” and cannot be consumed. My local sandwich shop had to stop selling a peanut butter honey spread on bagels as a sandwich option because the owners feared being picketed.
Improving communication is all about knowing and using language succinctly and precisely, and then supporting proper social behaviors through courage and tenacity. There is no reason the grocery store, the restaurant, and other social and community gatherings should be an atmosphere of foul deprecations, excuses for small minds to emotionally lose control, or for adults to imitate the worst childish behaviors. Standards promote freedom, and the US Republic is all about personal freedom through responsibility and accountability for one’s self.
DNC-Consulting 