At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

Obama and the Ideology of Blackism

posted by Jack Kerwick

Barack Obama’s election to the presidency was supposed to usher in a “post-racial” era in American life.  This, at any rate, is what the former Senator and his supporters in the media tried to sell us. 

It was nothing short of a lie.

The President never had the slightest intention of using the visibility of his office to improve race relations between whites and blacks.  Moreover, if an improvement in race relations is what we were after, then there couldn’t have been a worse person for us to have elected than Obama.

The reason for this is simpler than one may think: Obama is a “Blackist,” an adherent of “Blackism.”

Blackism is a racial ideology.  In this respect, it is differs sharply from black culture. It also has little to do with mere skin color, biology, or genetics.

Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, a black right leaning commentator, once told Sean Hannity in no uncertain terms that there are absolutely no substantive differences whatsoever between Obama, on the one hand, and such notorious race baiters as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, and Jeremiah Wright, on the other.  They are all of one mind when it comes to their view of “white America” and the place of blacks within it.  More specifically, they regard America as a bastion of “white racist oppression” and perpetual black suffering. Their commitment, first and foremost, is to extracting reparations of one form or another from whites to give to blacks.

Peterson was correct.  Obama’s ever growing list of alliances and appointees—from Wright, Farakhan, and Harvard professor Derrek Bell, to Van Jones and Attorney General Eric Holder—reads like a rogue’s gallery of white America’s enemies. 

And it is hostility toward whites that we should expect from any proponent of Blackism.

An ideology invariably consists in a small number of abstract concepts systematically linked. Through these few ideas, the ideologue filters every conceivable aspect of reality.  An ideology isn’t just a theory, mind you. Theories spring from consideration of this or that subject matter.  Ideologies, in contrast, are comprehensive.  The ideologue lives by his ideology alone.  There is nothing to which he will not bring it to bear.

Now, Blackism is an ideology.  The Blackist sees the entire world, from “the beginning,” so to speak, to the present, in terms of racial categories, yes, but, more importantly, from the perspective of black deprivation.  Race is the organizing principle of his schemata, but “Blackness” is the category to which he ascribes most significance; all others are subordinated to it.

Yet we would be gravely mistaken if we assumed that it is with mere color that the Blackist is preoccupied.  Not unlike any other concept, that of Blackness is not self-interpreting.  For the Blackist, membership in the Negroid race is a necessary condition of Blackness, though it is far from sufficient.  Blackness signifies commitment to the advancement—“by whichever means necessary,” as the Blackist par excellence, Malcolm X, famously stated it—of the ideology of Blackism. 

In his book, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Obama references Malcolm X numerous times.  There is no person who appears to have more influenced his thinking. 

Again, the ideology of Blackism is not to be confused with black culture.  This, though, isn’t to suggest that there is no relationship between the two.  There is: the former is a caricature or abridgment of the latter.  That is, like any other ideology, the ideology of Blackism is an abstraction from a complex, concrete, historically-specific tradition.  In this case, the tradition in question is that of what we call black culture.

Blackism, like any other ideology, supplies for its adherents a method, a relatively few basic principles or rules to which any black person living in any place and at any time can subscribe.  To put it more clearly, unlike so-called black culture, Blackism doesn’t require immersion in a traditional form of life.  Fluency in a culture is like fluency in a language; it is a hard won achievement that can be had only after much practice and over an extended period of time.  Mastery of an ideology, in glaring contrast, is something that can be gotten within no time, for the rules or principles of an ideology are propositions that readily lend themselves to memory. 

The difference between learning a culture and learning the ideology that is abstracted from it is the difference between, say, devoting time to the study of a literary classic, on the one hand, and, on the other, reading the cliff notes on it.  The difference between culture and ideology is the difference between a living faith and a static creed. 

Those who have mastered a tradition engage in it effortlessly.  Whether it is dancing, a martial art, or cooking, the professional dancer, the martial artist, and the chef seem to ply their respective crafts with all of the unselfconsciousness of a bird in flight.

Things are otherwise, however, with those who aspire toward a connoisseurship in these areas (or any areas).  The aspiring chef relies upon a cookbook (his “ideology”) and the aspiring martial artist and dancer too may very well consult books delineating “step-by-step” lessons accompanied by photos and illustrations. 

The cooking student is to the chef what the Blackist is to the black person who was reared in black culture. The cookbook was written for the amateur cook; the chef has no need of it.  Similarly, the ideology of Blackism was written for those blacks, and only those blacks, for whom black culture is an alien entity. 

Blacks like Barack Obama are most in need of Blackism.  Obama was raised by whites a world away from America’s ghettos.  Most of his friends growing up were his white classmates from the prestigious, private institutions that he attended.

The ideology of Blackism was made for people like the President. And he has unapologetically embraced it.

Obama may be only half-black.  But he is 100% Blackist.

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Examining Rich Lowry and National Review

posted by Jack Kerwick

John Derbyshire has spent many years writing for National Review.  Within the last few days, his tenure for the “conservative” magazine came to an abrupt halt.

Derbyshire, you see, was fired for having published (at another publication) an article—“The Talk: Nonblack Version”—that his editor, Rich Lowry, found both “nasty and indefensible.” 

Derbyshire’s essay is a distillation of the cautionary notes regarding groups of young black males that he has conveyed to his teenage children over the span of their young lives.  

Many commentators and readers have jumped to Derbyshire’s defense.  For the time being, though, rather than argue for or against the truth of the remarks of either the offending author or Lowry, we should instead ask: if Derbyshire’s comments are “nasty and indefensible,” then what makes them so?  Since Lowry never offers an explanation for his verdict, we are left to fall back upon our own resources to find the answer to this question. 

It is possible that Lowry thinks his judgment is self-justifying in the way that the statement, “All bodies are extended beings,” is self-justifying.  Yet when we give this just a moment’s consideration, we are forced to rule this out.  The latter statement, you see, is what is called an analytic proposition.  Analytic propositions are true by definition.  In an analytic statement, the meanings of the subject and predicate terms are identical.  An analytic statement can be denied only upon pain of contradiction.

Clearly, “Parental warnings to avoid large groups of young black males are ‘nasty and indefensible’ things” is a fundamentally different type of statement than “All bodies are extended beings,” “Green unicorns are colored entities,” and so forth.

Lowry’s judgment is emphatically not analytic.   

However, some statements may be “self-evident,” even though they aren’t true by definition.  “Every effect has a cause,” “I am really typing out this analysis of Rich Lowry’s judgment of John Derbyshire and not just dreaming that I am typing it out,” would be propositions of this latter sort.  Perhaps Lowry thinks that the nastiness and indefensibility of Derbyshire’s advice to his children is self-evident in this way. Perhaps he thinks that it is self-evident in the way in which the wrongness of torturing little children for the fun of it is self-evident.

Neither does this account do, for we treat these phenomena as self-evident because no one thinks to seriously question them.  In stark contrast, a good number of people take issue with Lowry’s characterization of Derbyshire’s remarks as “nasty and indefensible.”

To act “nasty” is to act in an uncivil, and possibly even cruel, way.  The person who acts nasty seeks to hurt people with his words, and maybe his actions.  Thus, though a person’s words, because they are judged inaccurate or unpleasant or whatever, may be hard to hear, whether they are “nasty’ or not depends solely upon the intentions or motives of the person who utters them.  Does Lowry think that Derbyshire sought to injure others with his words?  If so, for whom was he gunning? 

Considering that, originally, it was to and for his children that Derbyshire imparted his now notorious advice, he certainly couldn’t have intended to harm them. And how, we are left wondering, could words—wrong though they may be—that spring from the lips of a loving and concerned parent and are relayed by that same parent to others be intended to injure anyone?   

Does Lowry mean to suggest that Derbyshire doesn’t really believe in what he told his own children?  Does he think that Derbyshire didn’t really tell his children this stuff at all, that he was just making this up in order to offend and hurt his own readers?  Neither option sounds very believable.  At any rate, to ascribe to Derbyshire’s words a “nasty” character means that it is incumbent upon Lowry to answer these questions.

Next, we may ask of Lowry in which respect(s) Derbyshire’s remarks are “indefensible.”

Lowry condemns Derbyshire’s remarks.  But Derbyshire doesn’t just make assertions, it is crucial to bear in mind.  What assertions he makes Derbyshire then proceeds to substantiate with evidence.  Again, whether he succeeds in so doing is neither here nor there; the fact remains that he does indeed argue for his claims. 

Evidently, Lowry thinks that such arguments are so worthless as to be beyond mentioning. Yet, ordinarily, when a disagreement arises between two interlocutors—especially when they are colleagues, like Lowry and Derbyshire, who have worked alongside one another for years—each seeks to identify the deficiencies of the other’s position.  In this case, though, Lowry didn’t so much as attempt to expose the illegitimacy in Derbyshire’s reasoning.

So, we are left wondering: why does Lowry insist on condemning Derbyshire’s advice to the latter’s children as “nasty and indefensible?” 

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D. 

 

 

 

How and Why the Left will Attack Mitt Romney

posted by Jack Kerwick

On Wednesday April 4, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell remarked that while Judaism and Christianity are thousands of years in the making, Mormonism, in stark contrast, is a mere 182 years old.  Mormonism was “created” in 1830 “by a guy in upstate New York” who got “caught having sex” with his “maid” and then “explained to his wife that God told him do it.”  Alluding to Mormonism’s historically polygamous character, O’Donnell made sure to mention that Joseph Smith—the man who “invented” Mormonism—eventually went on to accumulate 48 wives.  

This isn’t the first time that O’Donnell has sought to discredit Mitt Romney by assailing the former Massachusetts Governor’s faith.  In 2007, he charged Mormonism with being a “racist faith.”  O’Donnell states: “As of 1978 it was an officially racist faith, and for political convenience in 1978, it switched.” 

Those Republicans who suspect that President Obama and his legions of supporters in the media are going to attack Romney by attacking his faith are correct.  Yet it is crucial that they know exactly why this will be their strategy of choice. 

For whatever reasons (we needn’t get into them here), Republicans and establishment “conservatives” refuse—adamantly, steadfastly, refuse—to acknowledge two facts about their rivals.  First, they refuse to concede how Democratic leftists think. Second, they refuse to recognize that unless they make this first concession, they will lose.

If Romney, the GOP nominee, wasn’t a Mormon, Democrats wouldn’t dream of making this campaign about religion.  Republicans must grasp this. They must reckon with the truth that Mormonism, from the leftist’s perspective, is more vulnerable a target than any and every other belief system save for, say, Neo-Nazism.  

O’Donnell forecasts the lines along which the left is going to come after Romney.

That Joseph Smith was a polygamist, and that the logic of Mormon theology implies the need for polygamy, permit leftists to depict Mormonism as an incorrigibly “sexist faith.  And that blacks had long been denied, not membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but access to its priesthood, exposes it to the left’s charge of “racism.”

Shortly after the presidential election, Californians successfully voted against the legalization of so-called “gay marriage.”  In response, leftists launched a full frontal assault against (white) Mormons—though, unsurprisingly, not against the blacks and Hispanics without whom the referendum would have crashed in defeat.

Rest assured, this incident will be among those upon which Romney’s critics will seize in depicting his faith as “homophobic.”

So Romney will effortlessly be portrayed by Obama and company as a “racist, sexist, homophobe.”  But this is not all. 

For all of the leftist’s railing against “stereotypes,” there is no one who trades in stereotypes more so than he.  To the last detail, Romney fits, or can be made to fit, the worst of the leftist’s stereotypes: Romney’s fabulous wealth and wholesome looking family renders him the poster boy for the pre-1960’s bourgeoisie, a ruling class ridden with hypocrisy, self-centeredness, and a cruel indifference to the suffering of blacks, women, and other minorities. 

In the leftist’s imagination, Americawas a cauldron of racial and gender oppression up until the Enlightenment of the 1960’s.  This explains why he despises “1950’s America,” the United Statesas it is portrayed in such television classics as Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best, and Leave it to Beaver.  Such shows offer an idealized presentation of the all-American family.  Yet given that this ideal co-existed with and, from the leftist’s point of view, actually facilitated “McCarthyism” and other forms of oppression, the ideal deconstructs under its own weight.  And in so doing, the white, heterosexual, bourgeoisie 1950’s family is revealed to be the Enemy of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful—i.e. the Politically Correct. 

Romney’s is the face of the Enemy.  Because of his membership in a little understood and unpopular church, there is no Republican candidate who is more legible for this distinction.  Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are Roman Catholics, and if ever there was a faith that lends itself to being interpreted by the left as “sexist” and “homophobic,” it is Catholicism; but too many American voters are Roman Catholic.  Similarly, Ron Paul is a Protestant, but the denomination to which he belongs, though posing a similar threat to the leftist’s sacred cows, is nevertheless a mainline Christian faith.        

Republicans had better prepare for this line of attack, for it is already under way.

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

Easter and Love

posted by Jack Kerwick

Easter is upon us.

From the time I was a child until the present day, I have always been amazed by how differently Americans generally and Christians particularly respond to Easter and Christmas. 

Christmas is impossible to avoid. Regardless of who you are, if you are a resident of the Western world, you have no choice but to reckon with Christmas.  The bonanza of films and television specials, the decorations, the festivities, the music—Christmas is ubiquitous. 

Easter, on the other hand, is not nearly so.  A person stands a better chance of sleeping his way through Easter than he does Thanksgiving or even, perhaps, Independence Day.  If your average Christian American wasn’t already habituated to this state of affairs, it could only strike him as bizarre.

By far and away, Easter Sunday is the most significant of holidays for the Christian.  Even Christmas assumes importance only in light of Easter.  After all, it is for the sake of the Resurrection that Christmas—the Birth of Christ—took place at all. 

By now, there is scarcely a soul, Christian or non-Christian, who isn’t familiar with the story of Easter.  Ironically, it is in no small measure because of this familiarity that we have become desensitized to what a truly marvelous story it is.  To appreciate it to the extent that it deserves, we must become reacquainted with Easter.  And to this end, we must approach it through new eyes.

According to the story of Easter, God, the Unconditioned Condition of all that is subjected Himself to the conditions of human existence.  The Impassable became passable, the Invulnerable vulnerable, the Incorruptible corruptible. Upon becoming a human being, the Ground and Author of all being voluntarily suffered and died.  And He suffered and died for the sake of the same love by which He created humanity (and everything else, for that matter). 

Yet while God loves us, it is crucial to recall that, as St. Johntells us, God is Love.  The Easter story is the story of how Love—Infinite, Eternal Love—became a finite, temporal human being in order to teach other human beings how to perfect their own loving.  Through His Passion and Death Love made it unmistakable that the will to love is nothing more or less than the will to sacrifice all for the sake of one’s beloved.  When it is considered that there isn’t a single person for whom Christ did not offer His life as a sacrifice, we recognize that the formidability of love’s demand to give one’s life for the object of one’s love is even greater than previously thought, for Jesus’ example beckons us to love everyone: the world must be each person’s beloved.

Believe it or not, for as tall an order as this demand undoubtedly is, it is not insurmountable.  In fact, if we think about it for just a moment, we will recognize both that it resonates with us as well as why it resonates.

The experience of love is as familiar—and universal—a human experience as any.  Not everyone loves equally well but we are all equal in having loved. Now, regardless of who or even what we have loved, there can be no denying that love comes at the cost of pain. To love anything is to turn oneself over to it—and this means that the lover exposes him or herself to the inescapability of being hurt.

There is a real sense in which each time we dare to love we will to give up our lives for the objects of our love.  Lovers invest their resources in time, labor, and energy—in short, their lives—in their beloved—in spite of the losses that they know they will inevitably suffer.  It isn’t just that, as Robert Frost said, “nothing gold can stay;” even in the midst of their love there will be pain.  There are moments when we feel more alone in the presence of our loved ones than when they are no longer with us.  Those who we love disappoint, anger, and sadden us, and with each of these experiences, there is the experience of having been betrayed—the experience of suffering a small death.  

Yet still, we continue to love.   

The Christian is heartened because he believes in Easter. He knows that his Lord, his God, has experienced what he has been experiencing his whole life.  “No servant is greater than his master,” Jesus declared.  The Christian is inspired to continue loving in the face of pain because Christ did the same.  The Passion narrative brings into crystal clear focus the brute fact that whatever injustices we think we have endured, Christ willingly endured them, but many times over. 

He was betrayed, and not just by Judas: His own family members and all of his Apostles, including and particularly those with whom He was closest, denied Him.  The legions of people to whose needs and hopes He attended throughout the duration of His ministry turned violently against Him in His hour of trial.  He was unjustly sentenced to be executed as a common criminal, but even as He was being hammered to a cross, He forgave His accusers and betrayers, and asked His heavenly Father to do the same.

While Jesus’ Passion and Death reveal love at its finest, it is really His Resurrection upon which Christian faith hinges, for it is through the Resurrection that Love’s indomitable character is unveiled.  Real, abiding love, God tells us through the Resurrection, is redemptive. Yes, the greatest lovers are those who suffer the greatest heartache, but all of the loss and suffering with which love is met, God reassures us, will be redeemed.  Even death has been rendered impotent by Love.

This is the promise of the Resurrection. 

Happy Easter!

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D. 

 

 

 

Previous Posts

Interracial Violence Ignored by the Media
For weeks on end, the police shooting death of a black man in Ferguson, Missouri by a white officer had managed to remain front and center on the national stage. The usual suspects in the Racism-Industrial-Complex (RIC) held up this incident as proof that “black men in America are under attack,”

posted 10:01:01pm Sep. 12, 2014 | read full post »

Iraq, Ideology, and Truth: Dissecting the Political Blame Game
It would be comical if the fate of our country and the world didn’t hang in the balance to watch the Democrats and their neoconservative Republican rivals point blame at one another as ISIS assumes the national stage. Some thoughts on this internecine battle between these two birds of the same

posted 10:19:44pm Sep. 11, 2014 | read full post »

The "Militarization" of the Police?
Making the rounds through libertarian (and other) circles in the wake of the police shooting death of Michael Brown is the notion that the “militarization” of local police forces is a huge problem besetting the country. Though I self-identify as a conservative, I have a considerable affection

posted 7:39:21am Sep. 04, 2014 | read full post »

Against the "Militarization" of the Police II
There’s a notion, popular among self-avowed “libertarians,” that among the largest threats facing our nation is that of “the militarization” of the police.  This idea has been expressed quite a bit as of late, particularly in the wake of the police shooting death of Michael Brown in Fergu

posted 10:43:11am Aug. 29, 2014 | read full post »

Libertarianism and "The Militarization" of the Police
A line that has become all too common in some libertarian circles is that the key problem, or even a problem, in Ferguson, Missouri is a problem facing the rest of the nation. This problem is what these libertarians have taken to calling “the militarization” of the police. The charge that

posted 2:20:30pm Aug. 24, 2014 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.