Articles

There is No Such Thing as Whiteness

There is no such thing as whiteness – there, I said it. And it is a sad truth that in the 21st Century, it is suddenly necessary to point out the obvious fact that "whiteness," as a categorical reality, does not even exist. Yet by means of a hideous regression in thinking imposed upon us by a small cadre of racist ideologues, this is precisely where we've landed – and rather abruptly, I must say. Not long ago – like, oh, the day before yesterday – this view of the human condition would have been denounced as intellectually perverse and morally repugnant from virtually every quarter of American society. But today, it is championed by government, business, sport, and educational institutions who seem to have victories, warped ideologies, and dollars as their top priorities, not the truth, decency, or morality. The ready acceptance of this racist doggerel represents a sad commentary on our times' moral and intellectual status.

Viewing life through the lens of “whiteness” (or any skin color, for that matter) hardly represents a leap forward or breathtaking insight into the true nature of human reality. It is instead a stunning and disturbing freefall into the ignorant, ethnocentric hatreds of our past. Ascribing various qualities of character – either positive or negative – to the color of one’s skin is something any modern scientist would instantly recognize as an error in category, like ascribing meanness to rocks simply because they’re hard, or spontaneity to trees because they blossom. Human attitudes, beliefs, prejudices, etc., are social and cultural constructs, while skin color is a biological construct, plain and simple.

Therefore, confusing or mingling the two makes absolutely no sense and represents an error in category, something very young children – who have yet to develop the capacity for critical thinking – often do but generally grow out of as they mature. In that sense, the assertion that whiteness represents a legitimate category – that is, a distinct racial classification with immutable behavioral characteristics predicated upon skin color alone – serves as a perfect example of the infantilization of our national discourse. Perhaps this is the reason proponents of “whiteness theory” never care to discuss it rationally, but resort instead to rage, bullying, slogans, and temper tantrums whenever challenged – the classic responses of a two-year-old.

We could trot out all the genetic evidence collected over decades that debunks even the notion of valid racial behavioral categories between groups of human beings, but would it resonate with those who have no interest in facts? Yes, individuals from differing racial groups can be distinguished by means of their genetic makeup; that's a fact. Genetic techniques can be used to determine the race and gender of a dead body, for instance, often years after death, if the genetic material remains largely intact. But this tells us nothing when applied to the deceased's culture, character, intelligence, or personal attributes. We are all individuals living in a vast sea of individuals, a fact most sentient beings have understood for at least one hundred years, many far longer than that. Therefore, the notion of "whiteness" is a concoction created to empower its architects while disempowering their opponents. The people who traffic in it know it's a lie.

Since the very notion of whiteness is unscientific, illogical, and absurd, its adherents have been forced into a wide range of increasingly bizarre ploys to support the nonsense they’ve hatched. The most blatant of these is the insistence that anyone questioning the “oppressive reality” of their own whiteness is, by definition, so obviously infected by the disease that they are incapable of discerning reality. From this ridiculous perspective (which is not a perspective at all, merely a disingenuous game), any factual or logical argument offered against the existence of whiteness is dismissed out of hand as proof positive of whiteness. Get it? Heads, I win, tails you lose. This is akin to the Salem witch trials when the accused was bound hand-and-foot, then tossed overboard into a lake. If they sank and drowned, it was interpreted as proof they were innocent, while if they floated to the surface, proof they were lying, which then resulted in either being burned at the stake or hung by the neck until dead. Either way, they were dead people walking before the “test” had even begun. Horrible, right? Well, welcome to the new Salem.

So, rather than defend the legitimacy of the monstrous lie of whiteness through something as simple as debate, its architects have gone on the offensive, attacking logic, science, even mathematics, as malicious products of – you got it! – whiteness. Recently in Oregon, as but one example, the Oregon Department of Education introduced a “virtual micro-course on math equity.” Teachers were asked to “examine their actions, beliefs, and values around teaching mathematics.” The reason for this was the supposed concern the “culture of whiteness” or white supremacy might have on mathematical teaching methodologies. What, precisely, concerned Oregon? Well, for instance, when “the focus is on getting the ‘right answer,’ or when ‘students are required to show their work.’” So, let’s get this straight – in Oregon, math no longer has anything to do with getting correct answers or showing your work to demonstrate that you know what you are doing, which means it has nothing to do with learning math.

That this folly represents a crippling blow to the math students themselves seems of no interest to the Oregon Department of Education, which would presumably prefer to churn out students with little or no mathematical skills rather than explain decades of their own failures. This is a game as old as the hills – when the message stinks, kill the messenger. How many of these children might we suppose will go on to careers in science, math, engineering, architecture, or even teaching with stunted mathematical skills? If this is “math equity,” then math equity is nothing more than state-imposed ignorance, educational malpractice bordering on child abuse. And you can bet that it will be the least fortunate who will suffer the most.

Truth is the antidote to this racist madness, of course, but for decades now, the proponents of Marxism, multi-culturalism, and social chaos have had the concept of truth square in their sights because the truth always stands in their way. Hence, in their attempt to destroy truth, they have insisted for years that truth is nothing more than a construct of social power, with no inherent validity whatsoever. Your truth is not mine, and my truth is not yours, and never the twain shall meet. Oh, really? Try telling that to your mechanic the next time he tells you your car needs a new transmission and see how far that “vision of truth” gets you down the road.

What defines us as human beings is not the color of our skin but our unique and wondrous capacity to grow and mature through love and learning, to become something more profound and meaningful each-and-every day of our lives. This idea is as true today as it has always been true and has nothing to do with the color of our skin. It is a positive, proven, inherently spiritual view of the human condition.

Notions of “whiteness,” on the other hand, are lies championed by frauds, baleful fictions recently dropped on our heads like bombs, and it is time to stand up and confront them. The defense of human compassion, decency, and freedom has been a long, arduous, and sometimes violent struggle because, for every person willing to live and let live, there are ten others who are not. The English philosopher Edmund Burke once wrote: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” So, I repeat. There is no such thing as whiteness.

Jim Stempel is a speaker and author of nine books and numerous articles on American history, spirituality, and warfare. Feel free to visit his website for all his books, reviews, articles, biography, and interviews.

Sanctuary Cities: Prosperity or Wretchedness?

 

The American satirist, Ambrose Bierce once defined politics as “A Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles,” and there is little question that historically virtually every American political party has at one time or another wrapped itself in the rhetoric of high principle while ruthlessly gaming for little more than electoral supremacy. Indeed, so common has this strategy become that today it is almost an American tradition, like tinsel on Christmas trees; simple, cheap, and easily forgotten. But recently, a group of mayors appear prepared to take this exercise to an entirely new level, announcing both publicly and stridently their intention to shield from Federal immigration authorities, not only the many undocumented individuals who live within their boundaries, but as well the felons and violent criminals who harbor among them.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was the first to mount the bully pulpit in this regard, declaring that his city would not cooperate with Federal authorities, and further that Chicago would remain a “safe” city for all those undocumented individuals affected, including the violent felons among them. Emanuel’s feisty declaration was then passionately seconded by a number of mayors, as though shielding violent criminals from the legal process was an act of civic virtue, per se. That Mr. Emanuel should declare his city “safe” for anyone at all (Chicago is now undergoing a catastrophic epidemic of assaults, shootings, and murders) struck some observers as curious if not downright laughable, and an almost incomprehensible stance for a mayor with approval ratings in African American and Latino neighborhoods (who are most affected by the violence) that remain substantially underwater.

Is Yoga an Example of Cultural Appropriation?

 

For those readers concerned with the deteriorating global order, a toxic presidential race, or the sputtering world economy, the fact that yoga has now been added to the ever-lengthening list of cultural appropriations may not seem worthy of even a second glance. But news it was, the story broken by the Ottawa Sun last Fall that students at the University of Ottawa’s Centre for Students with Disabilities nixed the practice due to concerns over its potential for cultural appropriation. (The classes later resumed.)

Now, for those unfamiliar with the latest strains of campus madness, cultural appropriation is roughly defined as the abduction of various forms of art, food, or general traditions from a minority culture that has experienced oppression or colonization or cultural “genocide” at the hands of our “dominant” Western Society and – lest we forget—without the expressed permission from the aforementioned minority culture. How exactly that permission is to be procured remains somewhat of a mystery, however. (How, for instance, would one secure permission from the Egyptian culture of, say, 5,000 BC? Is there an 800 number?)

Well, if you were previously unfamiliar with all of this, you are hardly alone. But, fortunately for us all, the reconnoiters of multiculturalism are tirelessly manning the conning towers of social justice these days, out scanning the horizon for even the slightest disturbance that might be interpreted as a cultural appropriation. In this they have not been disappointed. Everything from various forms of dress, dance, religion, language, Halloween costumes, legends, food, music, medicines, even canoes have made the ever-expanding list of unacceptable plundering. And who gets to decide exactly what is and is not cultural appropriation? Why, it’s the intellectual wunderkinds at places like the University of Ottawa along with, of course, their academic mentors. Is this nonsense? You bet it is!