Most have heard the story of the boy who cried, “Wolf!” Set to guard the sheep, he was promised that help would come if he was threatened by wolves; he just needed to yell for help. It was a powerful promise, and he couldn’t resist testing it. He cried, “Wolf!” Help came, but there were no wolves. He called again, and then he tried a third time. Finally, wolves actually came, but when he cried, no help came because no one took his call seriously.
The word “racist” is like that. When someone hates another because of their race and, because of their hatred, treats them as inferiors, it is appropriate to call them out. Like any other crime or injustice, however, we must have evidence. As commonly as it is presumed, mind-reading is not possible; even if it were, evidence needs to be objective and tangible, supported by multiple witnesses and irrefutable evidence—actions, documents, recordings. A number game won’t work either; the real world never works out ideally. Genetics is a good example. A gene chart may show that ¼ of offspring will bear the recessive trait, and ¾ the dominant trait, but actual offspring will rarely quite match those percentages. Similarly, if17% of the community are black, it is proof of nothing when employment numbers don’t show 17% to be black, and the percentages will be even further off where the number of employees is small. What is 17% of 10 employes, or 25, or 4? Fair and equitable does not mean equal numbers, and unequal numbers do not prove racism.
Perhaps the greatest problem, when this word is used wrongly or falsely, is the damage it does to the credibility of the charge and, ultimately, to identifiying those real racist actions that occur. Throwing the word around for political and propaganda purposes cheapens the word. Eventually no one will take it seriously.
Opposing a black President is not racist; it is political opposition, plain and simple. Accusing entire groups of people—conservatives, Republicans, Tea Party folks—is a ploy, one sadly accepted by far too many, some of whom are finally catching on that just maybe the man is a poor President! The absurdity of this ploy is that it is used against many of those who, historically, led and supported the civil rights movement against the very politicians who now try to claim moral superiority. The plight of many black folks today is far worse, in many respects, than before our government began helping them, a government dominated by Democrats and progressives. It amazes me how these very same people point the finger at their political opponents, cry race, and are believed by those suffering from their so-called help.
How a country handles immigration is a key obligation of its government, a government in our case that is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Yet that same government is defying its people and tolerating an influx of illegal aliens contrary to the will of a substantial majority. Indeed, by its past policies and present leader, it is encouraging even greater numbers of illegal aliens to come. They talk of a humanitarian crisis because so many are incoming children unaccompanied by parents. What rational leader encourages them to stay, far removed from their families, ill-equipped to function here? Who thinks that the best plan is to attempt to accommodate them here? Since when do we reward children who run away from home with a foster family, education, free medical and dental care, as if they were orphans? Yet, to ask such questions, in the view of elitist progressives and the present administration and its supporters is racist. No, it’s not!
In fact, I suspect that some of our policies and actions, thus far, have encouraged racial attitudes. When we tolerate educated immigrants to work in critical professions such as medicine without more than passable English, we create a problem. How is a person, especially an elderly person, to deal with a physician that they cannot understand? My 87-year-old mother has enough trouble understanding the medical issues she faces without the additional complication of heavily accented, poorly spoken English from her doctor. Incidently I don’t blame that doctor; I blame the elistists’ insistance on their multicultural agenda. I do not oppose that doctor’s native culture or language; I just believe that here he must speak our language and accommodate our culture, just as we should make every effort to apply the same principle in reverse. The difference, sensibly, is that an entire culture need not accommodate the few immigrants, foreign students, refugees, or visitors, while an immigrant, would-be citizen does need to embrace the language of his or her new homeland.
Requiring English as our national language is not racist; it is wise! To be one nation and one people, we need to be able to communicate. English has been and remains, so far, the dominant language, one that most Americans speak. This does not mean that English is a superior language to, say, Spanish or French or Chinese; it just means that visitors and newcomers need to learn what most of us speak so that we all can still communicate and get a long. We do not require immigrants to give up their culture, customs, or language although realistically that will gradually happen as children and grandchildren grow up here. If they believe that their culture is vastly superior, then perhaps the United States is not the place for them. This country has often been called a “melting pot,” although I believe perhaps a “stew pot” is a better analogy for, while the net result is an amalgam of what’s put in the pot, the various ingredients remain identifiable. Some want to label those separate parts—Chinese American, Latin American, African American, etc., but when I meet an Asian or Latino with perfect English, I often discover someone who is just an American. I’m not the least inclined to look down on them as I am not a racist. For that matter, I don’t look down on those with accented English or very little English at all, although I hope they will work hard so we call all speak the common language.
Recently, a young man was killed by police in Missouri. The repeated narrative we heard was that a sweet, unarmed, black teenager had been killed by police. Riots broke out, buildings were burned, riot police marched in like an army, and the Internet was hot with anger and scorn for the police. Then we learned that the young man was 20 and was anything but meek and mild. Using mere physical intimidation, he had stolen cigars from a convenience store owner, who was Asian. Police reported a different scenario that we had first heard, that he had pushed an officer back into his patrol car, attempted to take his gun, and from there a shot was fired. The family attorney accused police of an attempt to malign his character, by showing a video of the intimidation at the convenience store. Really? What character? He was behaving like a thug. To date, the investigation has confirmed the account of the officer involved and several witnesses, as did the autopsy. Nothing suggests that the police officer acted like a racist? Was rioting appropriate, or was that a racist backlash? Am I racist for resting judgment on the information that has come out AFTER an investigation? Parenthetically, as a freedom loving conservative, I am much alarmed by overly aggressive, paramilitary policing, which seems to be on the increase from federal departments all the way down to local police departments. In this instance, that heavy handedness merely exaggerated racial tensions without resolving anything.
Two things should be noted here. First government cannot fix racism. Second, government can stir up racism. Similarly, government cannot fix the economy, but it sure can screw it up! Elitists in the media, education, special interests, and government are more than willing to “Cry wolf” to pursue their agenda which is rarely about the wolf. In the case of racism, the media get stories, educators promote their socialist viewpoint, special interests raise money and make a select few rich, and politicians gain power. Pay attention whenever there is a claim of racism, and those profiteers will be on hand “playing the race care,” as they say, crying wolf!
No, government cannot fix racism or any number of other social problems. Only people can. As a Christian, I believe we who have, proclaim, and are commanded to love are the best equipped to end racism by loving our neighbor who is different from us. It breaks my heart when I see those who claim to follow Christ doing otherwise–hating, shaming, speaking lies, ignoring the one they claim as Savior and Lord. Surely some are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Others are defiant children whom the Lord may spank, while still others are ignorant or foolish. Of course, all of us are imperfect sinners, but we must not permit that to be an excuse. We must be those who love and who show tolerance, patience, and kindness in our love. While I believe we are better equipped and should be better motivated, anyone can strive toward those qualities toward those outside our circle of friends, outside our social circle, and unlike the one we see in the mirror.
That’s a two-way street, one I have been privileged to enjoy. It is so blessed to be loved and to love those who are different–a black single mother, a once illegal student, a kid from a small Asian immigrant community, a Muslim who looks just like one of those 9/11 terrorists, and so on. The government could never do that. The power-brokers would rather we didn’t; they benefit more from the problem continuing than being solved. The media don’t use much ink or air time on good news; it just doesn’t sell papers or ads on their shows. Even well-intended programs often have unintended consequences that make matters worse while costing lots of money.
God’s way is better, don’t you think. You know, that whole “lion laying down with the lamb” or that girl above hugging the wolf rather than calling for the riot squad.