Ninety miles from the South Eastern tip of the United States, Liberty has no stead. In order for Liberty to exist and thrive, Tyranny must be identified, recognized, confronted and extinguished.
I can think of a million things about which I disagree with the NAACP. I can think of a million things with which to credit George Washington.
But: The NAACP imagines itself as an organization tasked with helping black culture and prosperity recover from slavery and racism. It's pretty well documented that George Washington was a slave owner.
Even I can see their point in that regard.
This actually gets to the core of the cultural divide in terms of respect for our constitution. Because of these sort of perspectives, others can't see the great things about the foundation and founders of our country.
Where possible I prefer to convince people on the other side of the wisdom embedded in our constitution. I've been successful now and again.
But, if I can't acknowledge the things that are in their way, any attempts will be futile. That's no way to win a culture war, unless you intend to win by force rather than reason.
From my perspective, the NAACP is a racist organization that only serves to divert energy into the dead end of victim identity. If I am not mistaken the "celebration" is in the city of Washington DC. If they so despise the man, perhaps they should change their venue.
We certainly agree that their methods are self defeating. There is only one logical outcome to fighting racism with racism and everyone loses in that scenario.
Establishing policy based on race is patently racist on its face (quotas would be a good example). Using racist policy to correct the effects of past racist policy (whether legislated or cultural) will only lead to future racial conflict which historically tends toward genocide or some other hot racial conflict (the logical outcome).
As for the NAACP, they justify this by pursuing a stated goal of "equality". I could go along with this if they sought equality in opportunity free from racial discrimination. Instead, they want to use racial discrimination in order to achieve a broader goal, from their own web site: "the political, educational, social, and economic equality of all citizens."
Well, if they did achieve this unachievable goal, we would simply all live at the lowest common denominator. A sucky place to be sure. And further, their means to achieve it would by necessity require discriminating against others. That policy goal alone makes them, on their face, a communist organization.
I think it's horrible long term policy for everyone but particularly their named constituents ("colored people"). Unfortunately that policy is an easy sell to someone who is, or feels, downtrodden and those leaders can use that to their own political gain.
Anyway my original point was it might have been even less classy to invite a slave owner to a meeting of people purportedly trying to figure out how to recover from the economic effects of slavery, no matter how misguided (or evil) their methods. I don't think relocating our nation's capitol was an option for them.
It seems to me that minorities should be among the easiest people to convince of the value of individual liberty (gun ownership for example should be a no-brainer). In order to do so though, we have to both recognize and get past their hate for the slave owners among the founders of this country that is in whole or part behind their lack of respect for our constitution. They see win-lose in the past so they think win-lose in the future. I'm after win-win where I can get it.
I can think of a million things about which I disagree with the NAACP. I can think of a million things with which to credit George Washington.
ReplyDeleteBut: The NAACP imagines itself as an organization tasked with helping black culture and prosperity recover from slavery and racism. It's pretty well documented that George Washington was a slave owner.
Even I can see their point in that regard.
This actually gets to the core of the cultural divide in terms of respect for our constitution. Because of these sort of perspectives, others can't see the great things about the foundation and founders of our country.
Where possible I prefer to convince people on the other side of the wisdom embedded in our constitution. I've been successful now and again.
But, if I can't acknowledge the things that are in their way, any attempts will be futile. That's no way to win a culture war, unless you intend to win by force rather than reason.
From my perspective, the NAACP is a racist organization that only serves to divert energy into the dead end of victim identity. If I am not mistaken the "celebration" is in the city of Washington DC. If they so despise the man, perhaps they should change their venue.
Delete
ReplyDeleteWe certainly agree that their methods are self defeating. There is only one logical outcome to fighting racism with racism and everyone loses in that scenario.
Are you suggesting that identifying racism IS racism?
DeleteNo not at all. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
ReplyDeleteEstablishing policy based on race is patently racist on its face (quotas would be a good example). Using racist policy to correct the effects of past racist policy (whether legislated or cultural) will only lead to future racial conflict which historically tends toward genocide or some other hot racial conflict (the logical outcome).
As for the NAACP, they justify this by pursuing a stated goal of "equality". I could go along with this if they sought equality in opportunity free from racial discrimination. Instead, they want to use racial discrimination in order to achieve a broader goal, from their own web site: "the political, educational, social, and economic equality of all citizens."
Well, if they did achieve this unachievable goal, we would simply all live at the lowest common denominator. A sucky place to be sure. And further, their means to achieve it would by necessity require discriminating against others. That policy goal alone makes them, on their face, a communist organization.
I think it's horrible long term policy for everyone but particularly their named constituents ("colored people"). Unfortunately that policy is an easy sell to someone who is, or feels, downtrodden and those leaders can use that to their own political gain.
Anyway my original point was it might have been even less classy to invite a slave owner to a meeting of people purportedly trying to figure out how to recover from the economic effects of slavery, no matter how misguided (or evil) their methods. I don't think relocating our nation's capitol was an option for them.
It seems to me that minorities should be among the easiest people to convince of the value of individual liberty (gun ownership for example should be a no-brainer). In order to do so though, we have to both recognize and get past their hate for the slave owners among the founders of this country that is in whole or part behind their lack of respect for our constitution. They see win-lose in the past so they think win-lose in the future. I'm after win-win where I can get it.