Ron Paul is accused of \u201cracism\u201d for material that was published decades ago in a newsletter that he used to publish.\u00a0 Rather than argue here whether or not the charge is justified, let us instead consider the concept of \u201cracism\u201d itself.\u00a0<\/p>\n
If those who endorse the conventional wisdom are certain of nothing else, they are certain of the truth of the following propositions: \u201cRacism\u201d is prevalent and <\/em>it is the most egregious of transgressions, the most awful of vices.\u00a0 So horrible is \u201cracism\u201d that it is perhaps the sole <\/em>offense that our popular culture treats as virtually unpardonable.\u00a0 Public figures are forgiven for all manner of evil, from marital infidelity to the violation of promises to chronic dishonesty.\u00a0 But if convicted in the court of public opinion of \u201cracism,\u201d he or she can expect to be driven from \u201crespectable society.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Our sense of certitude notwithstanding, popular thought regarding \u201cracism\u201d is in a dilapidated condition.\u00a0 To put it more bluntly, talk on this topic is confused to the point of being incoherent.<\/p>\n For one, \u201cracism\u201d is almost <\/em>always ascribed to whites. <\/em>\u00a0This is very strange when it is considered that blacks victimize whites at a rate several times that at which whites victimize blacks. Roughly 90% of all interracial crime is black-on-white.\u00a0 And since Hispanics are identified as \u201cwhite\u201d when they are the perpetrators <\/em>of \u201chate crimes\u201d\u2014though not when they are victims\u2014<\/em>interracial crime involves white perpetrators\u00a0 less <\/em>than 10% of the time.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n But if \u201cracism\u201d is so easy to spot, and if it is something so terrible that no decent person could fail to be offended by it, then why are the most indignant of \u201canti-racists\u201d among us invariably silent when it comes to the astronomical rate of black-on-white crime?<\/p>\n This is one paradox that deserves pondering.<\/p>\n There is another problem, though, upon which we would be well served to reflect.<\/p>\n In spite of\u2014or perhaps because of\u2014our incessant talk of all things racial, we are eons away from reaching a consensus as to the nature of \u201cracism.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Consider:<\/p>\n If you are white and you acknowledge that the average IQ among blacks is a standard deviation lower than that found among whites, you are \u201cracist.\u201d (If, though, you are white and acknowledge that the average IQ among Asians is slightly higher than the average IQ among whites, somehow, you are not <\/em>\u201cracist!\u201d).<\/p>\n If you are white and you believe that this IQ difference found between blacks and whites is due to anything other than \u201ccultural bias\u201d in the IQ testing, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and you support \u201cthe War on Drugs,\u201d you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and you observe that according to the government\u2019s own statistical surveys, blacks victimize whites in far greater numbers than whites victimize blacks, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and you support the death penalty specifically and strict enforcement of the laws generally, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and you enjoy NASCAR driving, or golfing, or hockey, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and you believe that O.J. Simpson was guilty of murdering his wife and her lover, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and you prefer the suburbs to the cities, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and you prefer private schools to public schools for your children, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and you use words like \u201cblack hole, or expressions like \u201cpure as the driven snow,\u201d you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and you are a Christian, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and you are materially well to do, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and you are conservative, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and you are a Republican, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and you are a member of the Tea Party, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and you are not a leftist, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and you are <\/em>a leftist, you are still \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and a police officer or soldier, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and Southern, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white and didn\u2019t\u2019 vote for Barack Obama in 2008, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white, voted for Obama, but are now critical of him, you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n If you are white, <\/em>you are \u201cracist.\u201d<\/p>\n Whether it is to Adolph Hitler, Bull Connor, or David Duke; neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klansmen, Confederate soldiers, or Republicans; Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or Ron Paul; Trent Lott or the Los Angeles Police; genocidal murderers or white babies\u2014some indignant \u201canti-racist\u201d or other has applied the term \u201cracism.\u201d<\/p>\n How, any remotely reasonable person must ask, can a word that is applied this indiscriminately to persons and organizations that share nothing in common but the color of their skin possibly have any meaning?\u00a0\u00a0 At the very least, such a person can only conclude that if <\/em>the term ever meant anything, it has long since lost what meaning it had.<\/p>\n There is one final consideration to which we should attend when exploring the concept of \u201cracism.\u201d<\/p>\n During the medieval era, it was not uncommon to regard God as \u201cthe Unmoved Mover\u201d and \u201cthe Uncaused Cause.\u201d\u00a0 Today, it would seem, we think of \u201cracism\u201d along similar lines.\u00a0 \u201cRacism\u201d may not be eternal, like God, but, the \u201canti-racists\u201d imply, it no more owes its being to antecedent causes than does God Himself.\u00a0 The (always white<\/em>) \u201cracist\u201d is treated as the embodiment of raw, undifferentiated irrationality.\u00a0 And he is thought to be as immoral as he is irrational.<\/p>\n Two things of which to take note here.<\/p>\n The first is that no <\/em>disposition or activity, whether something to which we decide to give the name \u201cracism\u201d or anything else<\/em>, partakes of this character: there are reasons, whether justified or not, for everything.<\/p>\n Secondly, whether the reasons for \u201cracism\u201d or any anything else<\/em> are good or bad is something that can be settled only once those reasons are identified and discussed.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cRacism\u201d is indeed a matter over which we should dialogue.\u00a0 Yet if it is greater understanding, not moral exhibitionism, in which we are interested, then our discussion must begin with a tough minded examination of the concept of \u201cracism\u201d itself.<\/p>\n Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Ron Paul is accused of \u201cracism\u201d for material that was published decades ago in a newsletter that he used to publish.\u00a0 Rather than argue here whether or not the charge is justified, let us instead consider the concept of \u201cracism\u201d itself.\u00a0 If those who endorse the conventional wisdom are certain of nothing else, they are…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":399,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-341","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n