Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Racism and violence

It's not an idea that's bandied about publicly that much anymore, but I vividly remember during the late 80s and early 90s the paradigm holding that blacks cannot be racists. For example, in 1993, when Colin Ferguson, a black man, killed several people on a Island Commuter train, authorities cited "racial hated" as his motive. Immediately after that, one started hearing that, while his conduct could legitimately be "racial hatred," it certainly wasn't "racism." Why? Because racism is an "ism" held only by people in the power position (i.e., white people). Indeed, in a one-second Google search, I easily found the following quotation from an article about Black Americans (or as the author, Larry D. Crawford, aka Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti, calls them, "Afrikans"):

Racism must be defined by Afrikans in terms of our historical relationship to Europeans’ centuries old festival of "death, destruction and domination." It must be defined as a function of power. It must become recognized for what it is, a function of the perception of the probability of a threat or actual exercise of power by Europeans against Afrikans. There must be a record of unprovoked, unnecessary, excessive killing. The racist must be known and feared for killing for nothing. Without power, racism cannot exist. It would blow away like the dust of a disintegrated corpse. [Emphasis mine.]
I'll admit that I found the article unreadable, so I don't know what point its author was trying to make. I just found that quotation helpful to define a certain prevalent liberal mindset -- that the powerless, by definition, cannot be accused of evil motives. The reason I bring all this up is because the liberals have been exposing the flip-side of this view recently with their mantra that no one may criticize judges, since to do so automatically foments violence. David Limbaugh takes this on in his most recent column, in which he also exposes the liberal attitude that all conservative speech is, by definition, hate speech that inevitably causes violence:
It's regrettable that some have hinted at a nexus between recent episodes of courthouse violence — the murder of a state judge in Atlanta and the massacre of a federal judge's immediate family in Chicago — and the public's angst against unaccountable judges. Both crimes were committed by people with case-specific motives. No one seriously believes the murders were motivated by indiscriminate anger against the judiciary or judicial activism. It's laughable to think the killers were crusaders on a mission to restore the constitutional separation of powers. This spurious alleged relationship between anti-judiciary rhetoric and violence against judges is actually part of a larger anti-conservative slander the Left has been pedaling for years. The theme is simply: "Conservatives are angry, hateful individuals within a hair trigger of lurching into violence. We must discourage, even sometimes outlaw certain speech that might incite these lunatics to violence."
This is very much a "come the Revolution" worldview, based on nothing more than a Marxist political belief about innocent oppressed masses and violent oppressors. In this scenario, it is morally correct, indeed morally imperative, for those oppressed masses to turn and use violence on the oppressors -- who, after all, have it coming to them. With this paradigm in place, reality is irrelevant. It's 1917 all over again.