Paul R. Lehman, The word race has yet to be defined, but controls life in America.

May 20, 2020 at 1:16 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, Bigotry in America, biological races, black inferiority, blacks, Civil Right's Act 1964, criminal justice, discrimination, DNA, Donald Trump, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, Human Genome, identity, justice system, language, Police, Prejudice, President Obama, race, Race in America, racism, skin color, skin complexion, social conditioning, social justice system, Supreme Court Chief Justice, The Nation. Michelle Alexander. The New Jim Crow, white supremacy, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When the English, Anglo-Saxons, came to America they brought with them the concept of their nation is superior to all other nations under a myth proven to be bogus many times over, b nevertheless promoted by them. The element of superiority over other nations was incorporated into the concept of race by color. So, for all intent and purposes, the word race would be the key that opened or closed the doors to all things of value. In essence, the word race served to unite, separate, control, and discriminate one group of people from others. The word race, however, has no basis in science relative to biology but was invented to suggest a biological connection. So, if no one ever challenged the nature of the word race or tried to define it, it retained its place as the key element in European American, Anglo-Saxon superiority in society. The word race has been used in American society to control all the people regardless of their skin complexion.

Because European Americans are conditioned to view themselves as normal and superior to all other people they must continue to support, maintain, and promote that race perception. In doing so, they must perceive others as not normal and inferior. The problems manifest themselves when common sense, logic, reason, and reality come into play. First, the concept of biologically different races defies all scientific data beginning with Linnaeus in 1735, right up to today, and the study of DNA. Second, the word race has never been defined because data identifying a fixed race does not exist, and skin complexion varies individually. Third, the idea of a group of people all having the same characteristics, physically and mentally based on skin color is illogical and irrational because that would imply that these characteristics were biologically fixed, which we know to be false. Yet, this is the concept that Americans have been conditioned to accept as believable. However, to accept and believe all the aspects associated with the concept of race would render individuals mentally delusional.

To be specific, the word race id based on a myth, and myths are invented from mystical and magical elements not based on facts, for example, like the Tooth Fairy. The word racism comes from the word race and implies a belief in the concept of race. This belief in racism now becomes a form of superstition which the Oxford Dictionary defines “the belief that particular events happen in a way that cannot be explained by reason or science” and that has a direct impact on the believer’s life and sense of reality. The Oxford Dictionary defines a delusion as “an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.” Americans who accept and embrace the concept of race, in effect, suffer from this mental condition that is generally supported by the government and society.

One of the problems facing America today has to do with how the concept of race has and continues to influence our everyday lives. European Americans, Anglo-Saxons, Caucasians have all been conditioned to view themselves as privileged, which carried with it the elements of arrogance and authority. They have been conditioned to believe that their comfort and security should never be compromised by the presence of other people especially by people of color. If and when such a comprise takes place, they simply have to call law enforcement or take matters into their own hands. Either way, they look to receive satisfaction because all the powers of society and government reside with them.

For all intent and purpose, the word race still exercises its power, influence, and control in America today despite the many social changes that have taken place. Taylor Lewis in an article in The Nation over one hundred and fifty years ago wrote about the power of the language:” Even when we advocate the cause of the African, we do it in a manner that would be thought insulting and utterly undemocratic in any other case. We use the language of the masters and the owners.”He later noted that “The way in which we speak to the colored man, and of the colored man, shows an unconscious yielding to the anti-christian prejudice we are striving to overcome.” When we do not challenge the language, we simply acquiesce to its influence. More specifically, whenever the word race is used in any form socially and especially relative to African Americans, an advantage is given to European Americans. The word race serves to entrap the uninformed into thinking that it is legitimate rather than the bogus invention that it is. All the social gains made via civil rights legislation are taken back by the use of the word race because with its use, the concept becomes viable.

Michelle Alexander in her book, The New Jim Crow, shared the power the word race has today in our criminal justice system: “The dirty little secret of policing is that the Supreme Court has actually granted the police license to discriminate.”In essence, the court gave the police the right to stop and search anyone based on race; however, race could not be the primary cause for the stop and search. Therefore, when a person of color is stopped by law enforcement, any reason other than race will suffice. Little wonder that police officers are usually deemed within their rights to stop and search anyone. Unfortunately, the fact that an excessive number of people of color are the victims of stop and search is apparently of no consequence.

During the Obama presidency, much attention was paid to the injustice in the criminal justice system, but the present administration has tried to undo the good that was accomplished. Because of the rapidly changing demographics in America, the opportunity for improvement in our criminal justice system will come in time. When that time comes, we must be very careful in how we choose our words. The word race, which has yet to be defined, should not be used in a social context involving identity if its power is to be neutralized.

Paul R. Lehman, Identity confusion persists among Americans concerning race, ethnicity, and nationality

March 24, 2020 at 3:45 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, anglo saxons, Bigotry in America, biological races, black inferiority, blacks, China, DNA, education, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, France, Human Genome, identity, immigration, language, Media and Race, minority, Negro, race, Race in America, racism, skin color, skin complexion, social conditioning, white supremacy, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When the founding fathers invented and instituted their system of Anglo-Saxon/ European Identity confusion persists among Americans concerning race, ethnicity, and nationality American supremacy they knew that it was based on a myth and using color to define race was an illogical choice, but as long as they could maintain, support, and promote the concept, there was no fear of the myth being replaced by facts. Unfortunately, time has a way of uncovering things meant to stay hidden, but race as an identity is not one of them. Today, many Americans are confused as to their identity because society and the government have deliberately invented the confusion by mixing terms that are distinct and different from one another and using them as though they are interchangeable. All the words focus directly on personal identity, but when used refer to different things: race, ethnicity, and nationality.
What happens, generally, when Americans are asked their race? Too many will respond with an answer that includes a color; usually black or white because that is how society and the government have conditioned society to see themselves. If the words black and white were not used then words that signify the same idea are used like negro, colored, and Caucasian, etc… While these words might make reference to a so-called race, the fact is that race is an invented word and does not exist in the taxonomic classification. In addition, these words actually prevent a person’s factual identity from being recognized or used.
After delivering a lecture one afternoon at a small community library, one of the attendees, a senior European American woman raised her hand to ask a question. After I acknowledged her, she asked, “What is the European American you keep speaking about?” I explained to her that if she identified herself as white then she was a European American as far as society and the government was concerned. She responded that she was actually white. I asked her what did white mean. Her only answer was the color of her skin, she had forgotten about her ethnic identity and nationality. My next comments went to explain to the group the concept of ethnicity and ethnic groups.
Early scientists discovered variations in our species and found no biological differences in those variations, but because of their observations and experiences involving other peoples, they formed ideas and biases relative to many of these people. Rather than credit the cultural differences to the groups and their ways of life, many of these scientists, scholars, doctors, and others used their biases to identify various groups. All people belong to an ethnic group in some way or another. An ethnic group is defined as a group that sees itself and that others see them as a distinct community that possesses certain characteristics that sets them apart from other groups. What is considered ethnicity are shared characteristics such as culture, language, religion, and traditions, which contributes to an individual or person’s identity. None of these characteristics are biological, so they cannot be transferred from one person to another biologically.
So, every person on the planet has two identities, one ancestral and one chosen. The ancestral identity occurs when a person is born because that person takes the identity of the parents whatever that happens to be. For example, if both parents were Korean than the child’s identity would be Korean. However, if both parents had different ethnic identities, then the child would share both identities, but conform to the cultural practice of the group as to which one to present publically. In this example, the ethnicity and culture are the same, Korean. However, what would happen if that Korean child grew up and moved to France and decided to become a citizen there? Well, the child’s ancestral identity would remain the same, Korean, but the cultural identity would change to French.
“So, why do I identify myself as white,” she asked. I explained that probably because your parents decided that life in America would be more rewarding by discarding their ancestral and cultural identities for the one highly prized white identity. She seemed satisfied.
The American identity confusion persists in that race and ethnicity are perceived as the same which they are not; race is a myth, and ethnicity has nothing to do with biology. Nonetheless, the confusion continues when we introduce the term nationality. This term nationality refers to an identity that includes culture and a geographical location that is distinctive from other cultures and locations, like China or America. When Americans leave America to travel to other parts of the world the primary identification they take with them is a Passport. A brief examination of the Passport will show that no reference to a person’s physical appearance except in a photo of the person; no reference to skin color or ethnic identity is included. The same is true for individuals entering America. In essence, a person’s identity is based on their nationality, not their skin color or ancestral identity. Nationality has no biological component to its definition because it is inclusive to all that take shelter under it. When foreigners become American citizens they simply become Americans, not Irish Americans or Haitian Americans, just Americans.
Demographics have been rapidly changing America’s social landscape to the point that predictions indicate by the year 2045, the majority of Americans will be people of color. What that means is the system of European American supremacy will have a loss of its power to control the majority by using skin color. America’s practice of grouping people together by skin color was a way to control and discriminate the population and although other avenues of approach to achieve those ends exist, at least this one will no longer be available. Simply said, a person’s race is human, their ancestral ethnic identity comes from their parents, and their personal identity comes from their nationality. So, unless someone is writing an article or a book about someone, no need exists to provide an ancestral or cultural identity. In America, when someone is asked, “What are you,” the answer is simply—American. And what does an American look like? Just like you. And that’s all folks.

Paul R. Lehman,The 2020 U.S. Census still shows ignorance, stupidity, and bias concerning race

March 18, 2020 at 9:36 pm | Posted in African American, American Indian, anglo saxons, biological races, black inferiority, blacks, DNA, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, Human Genome, identity, law, minority, Race in America, skin color, skin complexion, social conditioning, U. S. Census, UNESCO, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ten years have passed since the last Census and one would have thought that the government or at least the Census Bureau would correct the mistake it has been making for too many years; that mistake is using the word race as though it is legitimate which it is not. At least three reasons exist for the continued use of the word race in the Census and they are ignorance, stupidity, and bias.
If the reason for their use of race is due to ignorance, then the people of America should demand that competent, intelligent, and knowledgeable people be employed to handle the Census. For example, we know from the Gnome study that no such thing as a black or white race exists; all humans are 99.99% alike. Nothing in our DNA indicates a fixed group or place that can be identified as a race distinct from the human race. Of course, if the people at the Census Bureau are not acquainted with this information then they can plead ignorance. As early as 1945 America was cautioned to stop using the word race because it has no scientific value, only social and political. So, it should not be used for identity, the word ethnic or phrase ethnic group should be used instead. America, however, ignored that cautionary warning and instead began using all three words that served to cause more confusion. Let us take a look at the problem.
In 1737 Carl Linnaeus invented Taxonomy, the system of classification of living organisms including man, which we still use today. His classification began with Domain and continued with Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family Genus, and Species. He found that all human beings belong to the same species, but there could be variations within the species, though not biological ones. In essence, if species is a pie, then all the pieces of the pie regardless of the shape and size would still be the same as the pie. Unfortunately, some people, including prominent scientists, scholars, and others saw an opportunity to insert their biases into the variety within the species and began to identify different groups as nations, and associated certain characteristics as superior or inferior to one another. Once the English established themselves as the superior and dominant nation the element of biology became more prominent and the term race replaced nation in some instances to underscore the biological connection. The English believed in a myth that supposedly identified their biological superiority in all areas and acted on that belief although it was continually debunked.
Nonetheless, the English brought to America the belief that their nation/race was superior to all others and so to ensure the maintenance and promotion of that belief, they put into effect the system we have today of European American superiority. All other nations/races are viewed as inferior to them by virtue of their skin complexion; if they considered you acceptable to them, then you were identified as white or Caucasian; all others were considered as black or at least non-white. So society and the government began using in documents, laws, and other forms of communications the words white race and black race knowing full well that no factual or biological basis existed for usage.
For some readers who might consider my comments conjecture, let me call your attention to the current 2020 Census form. The question on the form states: “What is (person’s name) race? (Help)”
This is followed by the sentence: “Select one or more boxes AND enter origins. For this census, Hispanic origins are not races.” This is where the ignorance comes into play. Nowhere is race defined, so the reader is presumed to know what race is, except people of Hispanic origins are told not to use race.
Next, the word White is listed alone followed by suggestions for people considered white: “Enter, for example, German, Irish, English, Italian, Lebanese, Egyptian, etc.”White is not defined, so how are people not listed to identify themselves? The next words listed are Black or African American and the following are examples to consider entering: “Enter, for example, African American, Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, Somali, etc.”Just a note, are Egyptians not from Africa? So why are they to be considered white and not black? Just asking.
The section for American Indian or Alaska Native is listed and they can “Enter name of enrolled or principal tribe(s), for example, Navajo Nation, Blackfeet Tribe, etc.”What follows this section is a list of specific cultural/geographical ethnic groups, but they seem to be identified as races. They include Chinese, Filipino, Asian Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese. Other Asians (for example, Pakistani, Cambodian, Hmong, etc.) Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro. Other Pacific Islander (enter, for example, Tongan, Fijian, Marshallese, etc.)
The last choice is Some other race (Enter race or origin). The list of all the groups identifies their culture and ethnicity, not their race. Everyone’s races are human, but the census suggests that biological differences exist among these groups. Listing and identifying as a member of an ethnic group is in keeping with collecting data, so why the confusion?
What seems somewhat stupid (defined as showing a lack of intelligence) are the labels that can accumulate over a brief time. How would parents identify their children if each parent was from a different so-called race? To be fair to the children, the parents would have to select both of their ethnic identities so as not to discriminate against one another. Unfortunately, no slot exists for that kind of response. The Government and the Census Bureau seem to view ethnic groups as fixed races which are totally irrational, illogical, and unreasonable, yet they want intelligent citizens to respond to their equally confusing questions about race. Also, what happened to the Caucasians? They are not listed as a choice with whites.
Finally, the system is rigged in favor of the European American/white when the word race is used as though it is legitimate because it performs precisely what it was invented to do in the first place back in the 1700s: to unite, and separate, control and discriminate. Therefore, as long as the word race is used as a form of identity the system will remain intact.

Paul R. Lehman, Parents of mixed-race children that offer advice to Prince Harry and Meghan are bigotry blind

April 12, 2019 at 11:58 pm | Posted in African American, African American celebrities, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, Bigotry in America, biological races, black inferiority, blacks, discrimination, DNA, education, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, Genealogy,, Human Genome, identity, interpretations, Prejudice, race, Race in America, racism, respect, skin color, skin complexion, social conditioning, white supremacy, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

Have you ever had the opportunity to learn a life lesson by accident without it costing you anything? Back when I was in the eighth grade, I was sitting in my social studies classroom one afternoon, waiting for class to begin when all of a sudden a loud disturbance came rushing to the front of the room—two of my male classmates were involved in fisticuffs. Our teacher, Mrs. Kelly, quickly put a stop to this display and ordered the two young men to her desk. The students were Bill and Allen and as far as anyone in the class knew, they were friends; they sat next to one another. Mrs. Kelly looked at the two students and asked the obvious question: what happened to cause this disruption?

Allen spoke first and said that Bill had insulted his mother by calling her a bad name. Bill had called her an ugly whore. Mrs. Kelly turned her eyes on Bill and asked if that was correct. He answered yes. She then looked at Allen and surprisingly asked him if it was true, was his mother an ugly whore? Allen became somewhat flustered but blurted out—no, not at all! She then turned back to Bill and asked why he had referred to Allen’s mother in such a manner. Allen said that Bill and said something that angered him, so he just said something to him to get even, and that was when Allen hit him.

Mrs. Kelly looked at both students and asked Bill if he knew Allen’s mother. He said no. She then asked if he had ever seen Allen’s mother. Again, he said no. She spoke to Allen and asked if he knew that Bill did not know nor had not even seen his mother. Allen answered yes, he knew that.  She then asked, “Why were you fighting when both of you knew that what was said was not true?” She looked at Allen and asked “How could Bill insult your mother when he does not know her, and why you would punch him for saying something that you knew was not true? Can you understand the foolishness of your actions? They both nodded in the affirmative. She then told them to look at each, apologize for acting so foolishly and get back to their seats. As they were heading back to their seats, she said for the entire class to hear: “next time you want to react foolishly to something that was said to or about you, stop, use your brain and think.” I got the message.

What brought this childhood memory to my attention was an article by Sonia Smith-Kang, in The Washington Post, (4/8/2019) about Harry and Meghan having a biracial child. The article began with this statement: “The pregnancy announcement from Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, sent the multiracial community into proud cyber-auntie and -uncle mode. We are so excited to welcome one more into our fold as we continue the distinction of being one of the fastest-growing populations, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.”The article is written by someone who identifies as a biracial person and attempts to relate with Harry and Meghan since they are expecting a baby who she believes will be biracial.

The focus of the article was to give some advice, hints, and suggestions to Harry and Meghan relative to raising their so-called biracial child. While the multiracial community and their comments were given in good faith and positive intent, they all fail to recognize one primary fact—they all possess unseen bigotry. How can that be? The answer lies in the community’s acceptance of the concept of race, especially by color, as legitimate and valid. They either do not know or choose to ignore the fact that race is a social invention and only one species of human beings exist on the planet, Homo sapiens. So, when people self-identify as biracial, mixed race or multiracial they are saying that they are only a part human being. One wonders what other species contribute to their make-up.

When people intentionally decide to identify themselves using race as a component in that identity such as biracial, mixed race, multiracial, they are in fact supporting, maintaining and promoting ethnic bigotry. Since race is a social invention and is based on skin color, we know that in America ethnic bigotry is part of the white supremacy concept. People who self-identify as biracial, mixed race and multiracial all accept the concept of white racial supremacy or there would be no value in their use of race.

All human beings belong to an ethnic group rather than the generally misused term race. Race has no scientific bases; a black race and white race does not exist. As a matter of fact, all human being are brown, including the extremes that are usually identified as black and white. Ethnic identity is based on geography and culture which includes language, religion, and customs. Biology has no involvement in ethnicity, but while many ethnic groups intermarry only the ones that accept the value of a white race use race as part of their identity. European Americans usually do not think of themselves as belonging to a race, but as the model of the human race.

Although the information provided by this group of self-identified mixed-race people appears helpful and thoughtful, it is very dangerous and harmful in that it isolates the mixed-race child from the population of human beings and treats the child as an alien. A person’s identity is based on his or her nationality, and nationality is based on geography and culture, not biology. Harry and Meghan’s child’s identity will be based on its nationality, not the cultural or ethnic identity of either parent. Even if that was the case, just what does an American and Englander look like? Forcing a child to view itself through the eyes of a race-biased culture would do extreme harm to its psyche.

The danger of a race-based concept comes from the association with social radicals such as the White Nationalist, the Aryan Nation, the Ku Klux Klan, and others hate groups that ignore the science that debunks the concept of race by color. Sharing the same or similar philosophy as hate groups serve to aid and abet them. Get the message!

 

Paul R. Lehman, Talking to kids about race should be a thoughtful, truthful, and rewarding undertaking for the kids

February 8, 2019 at 12:53 pm | Posted in African American, African American hair, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, black inferiority, blacks, Declaration of Independence, democracy, desegregation, discrimination, DNA, education, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, fairness, Hair, Human Genome, identity, integregation, justice, language, Media and Race, minorities, Negro, Oklahoma education, Prejudice, public education, race, Race in America, racism, skin color, skin complexion, Slavery, social conditioning, The Oklahoman, tolerance, white supremacy, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An interesting and troubling article, “Diversity discussion: How to talk to kids about race,” by Melissa Erickson, (The Oklahoman 1/28/2019) appeared in the paper recently and caught my attention because of the topic and the subject mentioned. The first concern was the activity suggested that someone—talk to kids about race. The problem with that activity depends on several things:  the teacher must be someone familiar with race, ethnicity, culture, and nationality; the ethnicity of the students to receive the information, and the approach to discussing the subject. A closer examination of this article was necessary.

A six-year-old boy came home from school one afternoon and surprised his mother with the question, “are you white”? The irony in the question was the fact that his mom’s maiden name was White, so she had to ask him to be more specific. Since he did not have a grasp of the significance of “white” viewed as an ethnic identity, the mother took the time to explain that she was not white and that a person’s skin complexion does not determine an identity unless he or she believes in myths.  Since mothers are their children’s primary teachers caution must be taken in discussing the subject of race with children because the manner in which the information is presented can, and in many cases, affect the children’s psyche in a positive or negative way.

If the teacher or individual introducing the subject of race to children or anyone for that matter, is not knowledgeable regarding race, ethnicity, culture, and nationality then whatever information given the children will be questionable. The most important decision the teacher must make is whether to discuss race as a myth, or race as a reality, or race as a myth viewed as reality. The results of the teacher’s choice will have a lasting effect on the children’s psyche and how they see themselves as well as how they see others, and how others see them.

Serious challenges accompany each of the choices in that the invention/occurrence of race in American society must be presented and justified. If race is viewed as a myth, then its continuation in society is a problem that society must address until the facts become the guiding principle of its use. All myths can be replaced with facts, but not all people will freely accept the facts. The fact about race is that only one exist, the human race. The benefit in presenting race as the myth it is serves to discount all the derivatives associated with race like racism, racial, biracial, etc….

If race is discussed as a reality then the subjects of its derivatives must also be presented which would include bigotry, prejudice, segregation, discrimination, and integration all of which introduce the overarching topic of European American (white) supremacy. The effect that discussing European American (white)supremacy can have on children was noted in the article: “Studies from the 1940s demonstrated that black American children [African American] as young as 3 associated more negative characteristics :(”bad,” “ ugly,”) to dolls with darker skin and more positive attributes to dolls with light skin and blue eyes (“pretty, “good” ).” So, teaching information about race as a reality would produce a negative affect on how children view themselves and others based on their skin complexion. The teacher would also be tasked with justifying the system of European American (white) supremacy in its many manifestations, especially, European American (white) privileges.

If race is discussed as a myth viewed as reality then the teacher has the responsibility to acknowledge the difference between the two and deliberately choose the way of hypocrisy. In other words, if the teacher knows that race is not biological but chooses to ignore that fact and discuss the myth as reality then a gross disservice is committed against the children and society.  The teacher’s decision to follow the myth as reality involves viewing American society as two-sided—one side that wants and fights from the democratic principles imbedded in the Constitution and Declaration, and one side that is bigoted, self-centered, and controlling using a philosophy of ethnic supremacy  favoring European Americans. Although the teacher’s intentions might be seemingly good, the effect of teaching young children about race, diversity, and tolerance would condition their young minds to look for differences in each other that are man-made and minor while avoiding the majority of things they have in common that are good and biological.

When race is taught so is bigotry because it unites and divides—us and them. One cannot avoid the facts of American slavery and ethnic diversity that accompanies a discussion on race. How would the teacher explain the actions of a Christian society that dehumanized people of color by enslaving them and then blaming their enslavement on the color of their skins? How would the teacher prevent the European American children from feeling guilty for the treatment of the slaves by their ancestors? How would the teacher underscore to the children the objective of teaching diversity that should seek to unite all people as one human family and not individual biologically races, while focusing primarily on their differences? The article noted Darnise C. Martin’s comment that “Conversations can be had about dolls, hair, superheroes and just generally helping children know that they are not any less because of skin color.” The problem with that comment is the underling assumption that race is acceptable and tolerable, but can be explained to the children without any psychological effects.

What happens at time when certain subjects are considered for discussions is that little effort is given to defining the terms to be used in and during the discussion because the assumption is that everybody already knows the meanings. Too often we act as though we do not see or realize the bigoted side of American society while we are enacting laws and policies that do just that. For example, sub-standard schools did not appear by accident nor were they invented by African Americans. The history of the African American and other people of color have never been a regular part of the public school curriculum, only Western civilization’s story. So why would we want to continue to promote a history of race to young children that would continue to promote, maintain, and protect bigotry?

So, what are we suppose to do? Why not just tell the truth about race being a myth and know that as long as we act like it is real, it will appear to be so, and in spite of the fact that our DNA says we are more alike than penguins? However, the minute we decide to focus on truth and facts, the myth will begin to deconstruct.

Paul R. Lehman, Report’s data on states racial integration progress is suspect

February 1, 2019 at 5:25 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American Dream, American history, American Indian, black inferiority, blacks, democracy, desegregation, discrimination, DNA, employment, entitlements, Equal Opportunity, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, fairness, Hispanic whites, Human Genome, integregation, justice, language, law, minorities, Non-Hispanic white, Prejudice, public education, race, Race in America, racism, segregation, skin color, social conditioning, social justice system, socioeconomics, The Oklahoman, tribalism, U. S. Census, White of a Different Color, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

The intent is not to rain on the parade, but too much confusion exists in the article “Report shows state has made progress on race,” to let pass ( The Oklahoman 01/2018). The reference to race in the article’s title is confusing as to its meaning. Once we got beyond the title, the confusion continued. Relying on “A new report from finance site Wallet-Hub” the report ”ranked states based on’ the current level of integration of whites and blacks by subtracting the values attributed to whites and blacks for a given metric.’” The ranking of each state’s progress relative to integration was based on four areas: Employment & Wealth, Education, Social & Civic Engagement, and Health. Oklahoma, according to the report, ranked 13th in racial integration out of the fifty states according to the four areas examined.

Without going into the meat of the report, we determined the data to be questionable in that no definition of terms used was given. Therefore, the reliability of the data is suspect from the beginning. For example, the term race is used in the article’s title, but no following information is offered to explain what is meant by race. If the reader has to rely on assumptions regarding the meaning or intended meaning of race, then what good is the data? Another problem is produced if the reader assumed the reference to race was intended to refer to the human race. The problems continued once we look at the objective of the Wallet-Hub report.

We read that the Wallet-Hub report focused on the “level of integration of whites and blacks”….Again, we are not informed as to the meaning of the terms white and black, but each term was treated as a monolith. We know historically that America at is formation socially constructed two races, one white and the other black, with the white being thought and treated as being superior to the black. But, this report was viewed as being current, and our knowledge of the false concept of two or more races is no longer acceptable. Without a clear definition of the term white any data offered would again be suspect.

The report also used the term black, but provided no definition or clarification as to its meaning or usage. One of the problems that the absence of a clear meaning or definition produced was the question of what black people provided the data for the report in that no specific culture, ethnicity, religion, language or geographic location was presented? So, who are the blacks? The same question exists for those people labeled as white.

When we turned to the U.S. Census Bureau for information the confusion increased because the bureau confused ethnicity, race, and origin. The bureau still operates under the assumption that multiple biological races exists. The bureau list the race categories as” White,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Asian,” Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” and finally, “Some Other Race.” So, all the scientific date relative to the human race and DNA is seemingly of no concern to the bureau.

We do not know how or why the Wallet-Hub report decided to use the two terms, black and white, but from the 2010 Census information relative to race the question of what is race still remained. The Census Bureau stated in its 2010 data what it meant by race. Noting that their data is based on self-identification, the language reads as follows: “The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country, and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically or genetically.” More specifically, it continued: “People may choose to report more than one race to indicate their racial mixture, such as “American Indian and “White.” People who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be of any race.”

If this information is not confusing enough read what the Bureau provided for blacks: “Black or African American” refers to a person having origin in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race(s) as “Black, African Am., or “Negro” or reported entries such as African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.” The information (biased and irrational) did not mention what selections were available to black individuals of mixed ethnicities—Puerto Ricans, Cubans etc…

Maybe the point of the report’s validity can be seen more objectively after reading the information from the Census Bureau. If race cannot be defined, and a person can select any race, how can the report provide accurate data about blacks and whites? Unnecessary confusion exists relative to terms like, race, ethnicity, origin, and nationality. One rule of thought exists regarding these terms, only one, the term race, has to do with biology, and that is only with respect to the human race. The other terms are all products of various cultures.

One other term used in the Wallet-Hub report was integration, but it, like race, black, and white was not defined or explained. The word integration became popular during and after the 1954, Brown v Topeka Board of Education case. Many people confuse the words desegregation with integration, but they are clearly not the same or interchangeable. When public schools were desegregated, that meant African American children had a seat in the room. Integration occurs when African American children sit in same the room as the European American children but also learn about their history as well. We still have some distance to travel before we reach integration and share the benefits of our diverse American cultural experiences.

As mentioned at the start of this piece, the intent was not to spoil the seemingly good news of the report concerning Oklahoma’s “progress on race,” but to bring some clarity and facts into the mix. One wonders why a group of “experts” would not be more attentive to the problems with the terms used in conducting this study. Good news is always welcomed relative to the plethora of societal problems involving America’s ethnic populations. When good news comes, we just want it to be accurate.

Paul R. Lehman, The challenge of history replacing the myth of race and racism

January 25, 2019 at 8:33 pm | Posted in Africa, African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, Christianity, Confederacy, democracy, desegregation, discrimination, DNA, entitlements, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, Genealogy,, Human Genome, justice, language, minorities, Prejudice, race, Race in America, racism, segregation, skin color, skin complexion, U. S. Census, UNESCO, white supremacy, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The old idiom of “beating a dead horse” comes to mind every time an incident involving ethnic bigotry occurs and affected and interested groups want to get together and talk about racism with the idea of defeating or overcoming it. The same scenario has been played for over three or more centuries and here it is today no further than before. Why? One might ask. The reasonable response is that racism cannot be defeated or destroyed because it is not a thing, but a concept. A concept is an idea and ideas are inventions, not facts. Racism is a concept derived from the false concept of the existence of biological races and as long as the concept is promoted, supported, and controlled it will persist. In order for racism to be removed from the psyche, it must be replaced. For example, when children are young and innocent they often ponder the question from where do babies come only to be told that a stork delivered them to their mommies. The stork story is an ancient myth generally thought to have come from Europe among other places. In any event, the idea of babies coming from a stork delivering them will stay with the children until they learn the truth about procreation. When that time occurs, the concept of the stork and the baby will be replaced by reality, not destroyed or defeated. Such is the case with racism.

Unfortunately, America and much of the Western world are not will to replace the concept of racism because it has and still works for them relative to providing privileges, power and prestige based on skin color. Much of the problem in replacing the myth comes from the fact that the myth of European American superiority has been tightly woven into the American psyche for so long that to many people it is no longer a myth. Over seventy years ago the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) issued several statements to the world regarding race:”These statements elucidated the genesis of theories of racial superiority. They emphasized that the biological differentiation of races does not exist and that the obvious differences between populations living in different geographical areas of the world should be attributed to the interaction of historical, economic, political, social and cultural factors rather than biological ones.” The critical point regarding race was emphasized in the statement issued in 2001, that: “Science – modern genetics in particular – has constantly affirmed the unity of the human species, and denied that the notion of `race’ has any foundation.” They further concluded that “Yet racism and racial discrimination have hardly vanished; Indeed, they have not only survived the scientific deconstruction of the concept of `race’ but even seem to be gaining ground in most parts of the world. In the age of globalisation, this situation may seem paradoxical.”In spite of all the data underscoring the concept of race, it persists today and will continue until the focus of inquiry moves from the results of racism to the cause.

In a recent article, Jonah Goldberg writes about how “out of step” the comments of Republican Steve King were when he spoke of white Nationalism, white supremacy, the Confederate flag and other elements of bigotry. The comments might appear out of step with what Goldberg sees as American ideals, but for King, and many other Americans, there was nothing unusual or wrong about those comments because they have been a part of the American experience since the beginning. A brief glimpse at history shows where the African American and other people of color have been deliberately discriminated against deprived of opportunities in education, housing, medicine, politics, and finance as a matter of life as usual. So, no wonder King’s anger and confusion about being cited and penalized for comments that he considered common and ordinary. What is missing from the article is the fact that many aspects of American History relative to the system of European superiority as it exists in America today has never been included in our public education.  Goldberg tried to underscore that lack of education relative to King by making reference to the myth of a white (and black) race in his statement: “Contrary to the prattle of white nationalists and supremacist, Western civilization is not synonymous with whiteness.” He added that many of the people thought to be white today:” Czechs, Hungarian, Poles, Italians, Greeks et al. weren’t “white” at the beginning of the 20th century.”

Goldberg’s article continued by providing a brief historical perspective on the early conceptions of race that included reference to a Dictionary of Races or Peoples that consisted of “a pseudoscientific grab bag containing ‘a motley compendium of ethnic stereotypes, skin complexion, head shape, and other hardy perennials of the race science literature.’” References to a number of ethnic groups and their contributions to Western society were included in the article in an effort to show the falseness of the white race superiority concept. He concluded that, “Among the best ideas and ideals of Western, Christian and most importantly, American civilization is that we are supposed to judge people on their individual merits, not keep score based on their ancestry.” While Goldberg’s article is factual and to the point relative to King’s perspective, the fact still remains that many Americans view history just as King does. So, what is gained by presenting his factual information about the false concept of race if nothing is offered to replace it?

Any meaningful discussion concerning race and racism must begin by deconstructing or debunking the concept of race. The reason for this action is because the discussion will produce nothing outside of race and racism and will continue in a non-ending circular state. The concepts of race and racism can be replaced with reality and factual information but not without the disruption of the psyche that is comfortable with the status quo and sees nothing to be gained from making the change. Too many Americans have shown that they are not ready to replace their ideas of race and racism with truth because some find beating a dead horse rewarding and entertaining.

 

Paul R. Lehman, Replacing the concept of race with reality in five extremely challenging and life-changing steps

November 28, 2018 at 4:16 pm | Posted in African American, American history, American Indian, American Racism, Bible, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, criminal justice, democracy, discrimination, DNA programs, education, entitlements, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, fairness, Genealogy,, Human Genome, identity, immigration, justice, lower class, Prejudice, public education, Public housing, race, respect, skin color, skin complexion, social conditioning, social justice system, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Although it might seem strange today, people initially thought that the earth was flat, and not a sphere. Around the year 500 A.D., a Greek named Pythagoras introduced the concept of the earth being a sphere, but people paid little notice until Aristotle, some two-hundred years later, 330 A.D., promoted the same concept. People were not eager to give up the concept of a flat earth. Even places in the Christian Bible show evidence of the concept of the earth being flat. Eventually, the voyages of Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan among others provided proof of the planet is a sphere. The acceptance of this fact brought with it a necessary change in the way earth was viewed. The concept of the flat earth was not destroyed or changed; it was replaced with scientific facts.

The point of the concept of a flat earth being replaced by the concept of a round one underscored the importance of fact and evidence in the process. Today, we have a similar situation before us with respect to the concept of race by color or geography that no longer has rational or realistic basics. Replacing this concept of race is extremely challenging because of the rewards associated with the identity of one group—European Americans. The problem exists because America’s Founding father invented and instituted a system of a race by color with two colors, black and white, playing major roles. Society was conditioned and forced to view the Anglo-Saxons (whites) as superior to all other races regardless of color, but especially the people of African descent. The concept of race by color became over several hundred years to be accepted as normal although it was constantly challenged because of its basic flaws.

Nevertheless, people of all persuasions accepted the concept and wrote about it like it was valid and factual. At one point in 1883, the term eugenics was coined by a British scientist who led the attempt to develop a super race. Fortunately, those efforts failed, but the studies continued until today the results of a study, the Human Genome Project, involving DNA revealed that all human beings are 99.09% alike. Many people do not want to accept the scientific evidence that proved the concept of race by color to be bogus. So, how does one go about replacing the concept of race by color to one of reality?

The very first step is to recognize that the concept of race by color is a myth, that all human beings belong to the same race; that all human being are a shade of brown, not black and white; that intelligence and character cannot be based on skin color. Because most, if not all of these things, have been a part of the national conscientiousness for centuries, recognizing them as false cannot happen easily. For some people, it is asking too much regardless of the facts and evidence that view race as not factual or valid. All people must be seen and accepted as part of the human family without anyone ethnic group being superior or inferior to any other.

The second step is to accept the fact that all Americans have been socially conditioned to accept the concept of race by color as normal and natural and before any positive progress can be made, this concept must be rejected and replaced with factual truths. This second step is extremely difficult because while some Americans can see prejudice and bigotry in others, they cannot or do not see it in themselves. That is why the first step is necessary. People who refer to themselves or others as black or white do not realize that in using those terms they are connecting with the past and the concept of race by color. The concept of race has to be replaced with ethnic group or ethnicity in order to not get caught in the trap seeing race by color. The identity of European Americans can no longer include the color white because white is simply the adjective preceding the noun race.

The third step involves a commitment to promote the concept of the human family that includes all ethnic groups, including European Americans as a part of that family. In other words, we recognize, respect and accept Americans with cultural differences from our own. We realize that just because our ethnic identity is different from some other ethnic group that does not give us the right to treat them differently and judges them as not being our equals. If we are all Americans, then everyone should expect and receive fairness and legal justice before the law. Unfortunately, America has not conditioned us to think and act that way. So, the commitment includes recognizing and working towards correcting the problems created by the concept of race by color. For example, the problem of voting rights, the problem of incarceration of the poor, the problem of substandard schools, the problem substandard housing, the problem of low paying jobs, the problem of law enforcement ’s bias against people of color. In other words, working towards correcting problems that affect all Americans, but that has been aimed primarily at the poor and people of color.

The fourth step involves a degree of self-discipline that keeps us from losing focus on our objective—replacing the concept of race. We have all been conditioned by our society, and especially by our concept and interpretation of our history. Our demographics are rapidly changing and having a great impact on society, so we need to remember America’s mantra: “e Pluribus Unum”—from many one. Unity must be our focus and objective.

The fifth step is the need to recognize and accept consistency in our thoughts and actions. Replacing the conception of race from what we were conditioned to believe to the reality of what we face in society today is a tremendous undertaking. When Joseph J. Ellis, a best-selling historian was asked the question:” What is the biggest failing of the Founders that still haunts us today?”He answered that “When the Founders talked about ‘we the people,’ they were not talking about black people. They weren’t talking about women, and they weren’t talking about Native Americans. Whenever race enters the question, the Founders are going to end up disappointing you.”

Replacing race with reality –an acceptance of all human beings as a family that is based on facts is the way society will move into a positive future.

Paul R. Lehman, Bigotry in our language is a not so hidden secret we can afford to ignore

September 3, 2018 at 6:44 pm | Posted in Africa, African American, African American hair, American history, American Racism, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, Civil Right's Act 1964, Constitutional rights, criminal justice, Declaration of Independence, discrimination, DNA, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, fairness, Hair, Human Genome, identity, justice, justice system, language, law, Media and Race, minorities, Negro, Prejudice, race, Race in America, racism, skin color, skin complexion, Slavery, social conditioning, social justice system, socioeconomics, white supremacy, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The objective from the very beginning was division and on a permanent basis as the reason the founding fathers invented two races, a black and a white. Unlike the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution that said we are one people, the concept of race has kept us separate and unequal. Subsequently, if we continue believing in the concept of races we will continue to be separate and never fulfill the objective of our democracy. If we are to ever have one nation, we will have to change the way to look, speak, and act towards one another. We also need to understand that the language we use helps to keep us separate. For example, as long as some people view themselves as black and white, they will not come together because of the historical significance of those words. They were meant to keep us apart.

Many well-meaning civic groups actually work against themselves by choosing a name that creates a negative and defensive feeling in others towards them. Take, for example, Black Lives Matter, a group that has an objective that is in keeping with the concept of democracy, but because of the word black in the name, it creates a defensive reaction in the minds of many European Americans.

We also have groups that use words like white, Aryan and caucasian that they believe makes them different from people who do not look like them. Their pronounced goal is to save or preserve the so-call white race. They need to visit history to learn what happens to people who are separated or separate themselves from other people; they become extinct, like for example, the Australian Tasmanian Aboriginals, and in America, the Eire people and the colony of Roanoke.

When civic activists call for unity among people of color, they miss the opportunity to enhance their programs by not inviting all concerned people. We as a society have been conditioned to identify ourselves based on our so-called differences when our objective should be for all to use the same identity. We are all Americans, so why is it necessary to use color or ethnicity as part of identity? When visitors come to America, they come using their cultural identity. When Americans get a passport they provide a picture, but no racial or ethnic identity, because our cultural identity is American, not black or white, Hispanic or Asian etc.

We do ourselves a constant disservice by identifying ourselves as separate groups which have been our legacy since slavery. We have to grasp the reality of our situation understanding that the concept of biological races is a myth, invention, social construction, and lie. Prior to the Human Genome Project, everything about races with the numerous divisions, classifications, and characteristics was conjecture and opinion. We now have scientific proof, validation, and evidence that all human beings are more alike than penguins, and the skin complexion, eye shape and color, and hair texture are not unique to a select group of human beings. We are of one race of beings whether we like it or not.

We might think that language does not play so great a part in our lives and our behavior, but studies old and recent underscore the fact that when the words black and white are used in a sentence referring to an identity, a measured reaction occurs. The reaction for the European American, usually an increased heartbeat, is observed when the word black is used because of the social conditioning associated with the word. African Americans do not experience a similar reaction when the word white appeared in a sentence because they are conditioned to seeing it and without feeling threatened.

The media in American society contributes greatly to the separation of ethnic groups by the way they use inappropriate identity language. For example, if a bank is robbed and the robber was apprehended, nothing pertaining to the robbery is gained when the ethnicity of the robber is identified. Except, in American society today the identity of the robber is omitted if he or she happens to be European American, but the identity is almost always given when the robber ‘s identity is a person of color. The effect of the naming the identity of the ethnic person serves to strengthen the negative stereotype society already has of the person of color.

Another way in which the media contributes to the negative stereotypes and biased attitudes held by some Americans relative to people of color has to do with the mentioning of the geographic location of an incident that is readily identified as being in a location where predominately people of color reside. Again, the mere mention of the location adds to the negative stereotype held by many people familiar with the location.

Today, with all the problems America is facing relative to our government and the various policies being addressed both positively and negatively, we need to take the opportunity to add our concept of race and identity into the mix and deal with it once and for all. We continue to talk about racism as if it was legitimate rather than bigotry which is what has been and continues to be practiced in society. Yes, our language uses the word racism to talk about social biases, but simultaneously serves to keep the concept of races alive and our society separate. We need to decide what kind of society we want to live in as well as our children and grandchildren. Once we make that choice, we need to get to work and make it happen. We have been talking about racism for three hundred years to no avail because we are still talking about it without a change in the daily behaviors of people. Racism is not the problem, we are because we refuse to accept the fact that we have been living in a false reality. What we cannot continue pretending to not see is the rapidly changing demographics that will force changes in society relative to cultural and ancestral identities.

We currently have an opportunity to make great strides in addressing our oneness as a society by debunking the myth of race and working to make America what it was meant to be a democracy. We will not and cannot get to where we want, and need, to be if we do not change from using our misleading ethnically biased language of bigotry.

Paul R. Lehman, Why Steve Bannon wants to be called a racist and wear it as a badge of honor

March 17, 2018 at 2:23 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, discrimination, DNA, equality, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, Human Genome, Media and Race, Prejudice, President Obama, race, Race in America, skin color, skin complexion, Steve Bannon, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For almost a decade this blog has advised readers to stop using the word racist because it was inaccurate and counterproductive.  The fact is that when someone who has a bias against people of ethnicities different from his or her own is called a racist that serves to underscore, support, and compliment them and their beliefs. When people speak and behave in bias ways that show their bigotry towards other people, they can usually hide behind the word racist. Let us look briefly at what forms the basis of the word racist.

When the word race came into popular usage by the Anglo and Saxons with reference to the British, no concern for physical appearance was at issue. The word was used to signify a difference in character and social behavior. The British were referred to as “brutes” by the Anglo and Saxons with the understanding that their ancestries were totally different and not akin; that is, they did not want to be associated with them in any way. A change in the use and significance of the word race came into effect when slavery was introduced in Europe, and especially in England. As long as all people regardless of their skin complexion and social status were viewed as human beings treatment of them showed respect for their humanity. Once, however, some people could be viewed as less than human, then, less humane treatment of them could be justified. So, the word race began to take on a different usage, one that took into consideration not only the character, and social status of people but also their skin color.

When the founding fathers introduced the concept of race by skin color, they did so base on nothing more than their desire to avoid having to justify slavery. The bias against people of low social and economic status was already in place before they left England. In order to have people of color viewed as inferior, the European American or Anglo-Saxons had to be seen as superior, hence, white supremacy. As long as European Americans controlled society, they could also control the concept of European American supremacy which they did through all the social institutions as well as through the churches. What the founding fathers did not realize was that their concept of race by skin color was flawed and based on simply a false concept that could not withstand the test of time, and their control would not last forever.

Consequently, today many European Americans conditioned by society to see themselves only through their skin color are being impolitely awakened to the reality of their delusion—no such thing as a black race and a white race exists. In fact, the only race of human in existence today, as far as we know, is human beings. Unfortunately, many European Americans who have for many years viewed themselves as superior to all people of color are unwilling to accept the fact that they were deceived about race. The deception has been such an integral part of American society that having to come to grips with reality is a monumental challenge.

For years, many groups in America have based their identity and social significance on the color of their skin and the concept of skin complexion being the basis of a biological race which they wish to preserve. The total number of groups are too numerous to name here, but a few that are generally known as white nationalist groups, focus on white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, and they often focus on the alleged inferiority of people of color. A few of these groups include Ku Klux Klan, neo-Confederate, neo-Nazi, racist skinhead, Christian Identity, and Aryan nation among many more. These kinds of groups are not restricted to America but exist in parts of the world where the concept of a white race is cultivated. These groups are now experiencing pressure from the changing demographics around the world that debunk the concept of race. Their natural inclination is to fight back, which is what they are trying to do primarily through propaganda in a variety of forms.

In a recent article by Daniel Politi in The Slatest (3/10/2018) “Let Them Call You Racist…Wear it as a Badge of Honor,” we learn that President Trump’s “former chief strategist Steve Bannon told a gathering of the far-right in France that they should be proud of being called racists.” Speaking to members of the French National Front party Bannon added: “Let them call you xenophobes. Let them call you nativists. Wear it as a badge of honor.” Each of the labels focuses on the idea or concept of a mythical race of so-called white people. Bannon attempted to justify his advice to these far-right groups in general: “Why should members of the far-right wear the racist label as a badge of honor? ‘Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker,’ Bannon told the crowd. In his travels throughout the world, Bannon has learned that ‘history is on our side’ because ‘globalists have no answers to freedom.’” Bannon’s philosophy defies rational and common sense in that he does not identify or define who the “other side “and the “globalists” are nor does he state the group’s objective.

When Barak Obama became President of the United States, the fact that he was a man of color, an African American, sent a shock wave through the bigots of America and around the world. The shock was to their belief in European American/white superiority. While the myth of race and skin color representing symbols of superiority and inferiority have been debunked for many years, bigots have no rational way of accepting the reality that all human beings are brown; just different shades of brown. Hence, the foundation of their philosophy and belief in a white race and its superiority have no basis on which to sustain itself other than propaganda. With 80% of the observable world’s population being people of color, and the rapidly changing demographics representing mixed ethnic populations, the numbers are greatly against Bannon and his like-minded followers.

Bannon and his followers enjoy being called racist because that word supports their philosophy of a white race; however, the use of that word also removes any direct responsibility of bias from the individual and assigns it to the so-called white race of which the individual is only a representative. The fact is that Bannon is not a racist, but a bigot, a word he does not use. He does not use it because it is accurate and places all responsibility for the bigotry on the individual, not a group, and it does not support a superiority concept. So, for the record, Bannon is not a racist, but a bigot.

 

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.