I have so many blogs written; in fact, I've already completed all this year's blogs and part of next year's blogs. That's why I figured I wouldn't let this one sit another year; it's been sitting for a few years already.
I figured, why not start the year off with a bang?
So, was the title "clickbait"?
Years ago, I watched a news clip of some of the people arrested for destroying a Confederate statue.
It always amazed me how intolerant tolerant people were. And how ignorant people were of history (some of this was written in another blog/podcast/book—I’ve done so much writing I don’t remember exactly where it was now. lol).
Remember, this was during that time in Western culture where everything not considered a part of woke, everything white, everything pro-God, pro-Constitution, and pro-America was considered offensive, intolerant, hateful, and racist.
It was also a time where I lost friends and family who accused me of being racist just for being white-skinned and a Nazi for daring to be proud of my home country and holding to the idea of America first and biblical values.
It’s true. “The summer of love.” “Mostly peaceful.”
It was also the time when American icons and our Founding Fathers images, legacies, and contributions were spit upon, torn down, renamed, and rewritten in the name of anti-hate, anti-racism, tolerance, entitlement, and self-enlightenment.
Anyway.
One of the people tearing down statues that they and their politics deemed offensive said that "people have a right to take down symbols of racism and white supremacy."
I began wondering:
First, who gets to decide what is offensive, and by what standard are we judging what is and isn’t offensive?
Secondly, what is white supremacy, and who decides what it is? Also, are there other forms of supremacy?
These seem like easy questions to answer; however, when you have different cultures, like Asians and Hispanics, and different colors of people, like Black-skinned people, being labeled as white supremacists by the mainstream media and political leaders, and things such as the climate, roads, bridges, and such as white supremacy, then defining who is and what is white supremacy becomes much harder to explain with coherent logic.
I also began wondering: does that "right to take down symbols of racism and white supremacy" apply to everyone about all perceived symbols of racism and supremacy or just one group's perceived views (opinions) against one type of symbol and race that that group subjectively defines as racism and supremacy? If the former, I missed reading that in the Constitution. If the latter, then that in and of itself is racism and supremacy, is it not? Unless you allow all groups and all peoples to remove themselves from society and tear down all symbols that they deem racist and supremacist.
And if it takes racism and supremacy to fight racism and supremacy, then it must be justified that more racism and supremacy must be used to fight the new racism and supremacy that arose to fight the previous perceived racism and supremacy. Thus, a never-ending cycle of racism and supremacy must be implemented to fight racism and supremacy.
Sure, it makes those involved feel good, but would they accept the same when the symbols they might agree with are also torn down to fight the racism and supremacy of which they might not perceive but another does?
It was just a thought.
Comments