Thomas Jefferson tagged posts

The “Race” to the Bottom for America

Are you tired yet of every racial grievance making its way into the political arena to try to score political points? Tired of people using race as an excuse to justify poor behavior like tearing down or defacing historical monuments? Tired of the double-standards, hypocrisy, and the dredging up of historical animosities to perpetuate racial divides?

We are in a “race” to the bottom in America, and we’re getting there fast!

Recently, during two school assemblies at Glen Allen high school in Henrico, VA, administrators played a four-minute, “racially-charged” video created by the African American Policy Forum (AAPF) portraying any non-Caucasoid American as a victim of discrimination and white privilege. The title of the video? “Structural Discrimination: The Unequal Opportunity Race

There is too much to dismantle about this blatant “error in judgement” on the part of school administrators, but let us try to at least discuss the major problems.

Reportedly, the purpose for showing the video was to educate about American history and racial discourse for Black History Month.


Now, because I am a firm believer that words still have meaning I want to take just a moment to define the word “race” in order to clarify how it ought to be used, and to illustrate how it is being completely hijacked for the purposes of the racial grievance industry.

Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines race as “The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock.”   Now, consider that the current forensic anthropological classification of the 3 races are:  Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid.

Noah Webster

Noah Webster

The “stock” (or progenitors) of the 3 races are Shem, Ham, and Japheth who were the sons of Noah.  Negroids are descended from the line of Ham, Mongoloids are descended from the line of Shem, and Caucasoids are descended from the line of Japheth.  Obviously, today the races have greatly intermingled which is why forensic anthropologists must use the size and shape of various bones structures such as the upper jaw and cheekbones in order to determine from which race a person descends.

Yes, you read that correctly– even though the grievance industry uses the word “race” to describe the color of a person’s skin, the pigmentation alone does not determine race.

By way of comparison, the word “racism” does not even exist in Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.  As you may have guessed, this word has only been used recently (since the 1930s) in its current inappropriate context.  One of the problems with creating new words that are vague in nature or lack a precise definition is that it allows anyone during the period of its earliest usage to hijack it for their own purposes.  While the reasonable person would expect that the word “racism” deals with the 3 different races, the actual application of the word by the racial grievance industry changes depending on which classification of people are attempting to extort benefits from their counterparts in the other classifications.  On one day the classification could be by ethnicity, yet on another it could be by nationality, skin color, or a geographic region their ancestors came from.

“Racism” is just a convenient word to incite fear in those who concern themselves with political correctness.


So let’s allow a gracious definition of the word “racism” so we might continue this discussion and further dismantle the motives of the school administrators and the premises behind the video itself.

Other than trying to align an individual’s identity with the pigmentation of their skin rather than their citizenship and allegiance to the Unites States, what purpose is served by acknowledging “Black History Month” in the school system? Should we then have “White History Month,” “Yellow History Month,” “Brown History Month,” and “Red History Month” as well?  Perhaps we should reorganize our calendar to allow enough months for each self-identified victim class to have their own month to air perceived grievances? After all, wouldn’t that be fair?  (More on fairness later)

Why should it matter if a person is descended from sub-Saharan Africans, Europeans, or indigenous peoples from Latin America? Isn’t it more important that the American history we learn is about America and how Americans have arrived at our current set of circumstances?

Of course, like every other nation, our history involves strife between nations, races, and ideologies (e.g. War of 1812, slavery, politics), as well as strife within a nation (e.g. the Civil War).  Every rational American literate in our nation acknowledges the political, martial, social, and moral obstacles we have overcome to get where we are today.  Yet, it is the current choices we make as individuals (guided by our principles and values) that define us–not one or more snapshots in the history of our nation, or the pigmentation in our skin.

mlk

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” –Dr. Martin Luther King

So, if we accept that each of us should be defined by the “content of [our] character” as evidenced by our current choices, and not by mistakes we made in the past, how can our entire nation be judged differently?  Only through hypocrisy can both be accepted.  Is not the United States (as our name implies) made up of the several states, which in turn are comprised of us as individuals?  President Thomas Jefferson said it best in his letter to George Logan in 1816.

President Thomas Jefferson

President Thomas Jefferson

“It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings collected together are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately” –President Thomas Jefferson in The Works of Thomas Jefferson, pg. 43

If we are truly interested in teaching history for the sake of learning from its teachings, shouldn’t we spend some time on the former Yugoslavia and how its ethnic divides gave rise to the term “balkanization?”  Perhaps it is not a great idea to promulgate the perceived injustices of various races, ethnicities, or any other arbitrary classification of peoples living together.  As we have learned from even recent history, there are severe consequences.

So, back to the video…

The major premise of the video is clearly evident in the title “Structural Discrimination: The Unequal Opportunity Race”

I don’t think this warrants much time, but the implication is that some form of discrimination is built into the structure of America, and that somehow there is a race afoot where different classes of individuals have unequal opportunities to “win.”

Based on the content of the video, the “race” seems to be about acquiring wealth.  While I do not personally believe that this is the race we are running in life, for the sake of our discussion, let’s give the benefit of the doubt to the African American Policy Forum and assume that the wealth of which they speak is that which is necessary to support a person through his lifetime.

After watching this video, somehow we are expected to arrive at the conclusion that the pigmentation of a person’s skin may somehow cause an individual to have an unequal opportunity to acquire the wealth necessary to support himself.

Since the video is about racial discourse, let’s put our “race” glasses on and see what we can learn.

There are four actors in the video:

  • one pale-skinned male and one pale-skinned female runner
    • We will presume both are Caucasoids although we are unable to be sure without our forensic anthropology measurements
  • one slightly darker male runner who could be Latino or from the south of Asia
    • Perhaps we are to presume he is Mongoloid, but again, who can know what race he is without measurements;
  • one even darker-skinned female runner who might be of African descent
    • We are to presume she is of the Negroid race;

This is the part of the problem with the racial grievance industry…they throw around vague and nondescript terms like “race” and “racism” without informing the public of how they are using the term.  Then when you point out a flaw in the premise of their argument by saying something like, “how do you know what race these runners are?”, they will inform you that their definition of race has changed to the color of skin.  The problem with this tactic is, where do you draw the line in shades of color? Can a light-skinned Irishman call a tan Italian a racist? Can a dark-skinned Latino call a native Central American a racist?  This is why the grievance industry must constantly change the definitions of the “injured” party or allow them to self-identify in order to keep the industry alive and profitable.

booker-t-washington greivance

From My Larger Education, Being Chapters from My Experience (1911) by Booker T. Washington, pg. 118

Back to the race…

So, when the race starts, the time on the clock is 1492, which is supposed to be symbolic of the discovery of America by Europeans (Caucasoids).  The implication? That the “structural discrimination” began as soon as Columbus arrived to America.  However, no mention is made of the discrimination that took place between indigenous tribes on the continent before or since that date.  In that era, discrimination took the form of violent inter-tribal warfare, and it is only the lack of modern technology (gunpowder) initially that prevented the “discrimination” from claiming even more lives.

Certainly the AAPF is not suggesting that discrimination from within a race is acceptable are they?  That only discrimination from a separate race is frowned upon?  Because they do not mention this discrimination at all! But then again, consider the lack of outcry from the “Black Lives Matter” proponents about the significant amount of deaths caused by individuals with the same (or similar) pigmentation in their skin...

Read More

The Myth Surrounding Separation of Church and State

“That violates the ‘separation of church and state’!”

How often do you hear this phrase screamed across the airwaves in a news program or a heated debate about the role of religion in our government?

Do you ever give it a second thought?

Do you know where the phrase originated?

If you said, “The Constitution” or “the 1st Amendment”, you’re wrong!  This phrase does not appear once in any of our founding documents–even though, the proponents of a “separation of church and state” would have you believe just that, or that it was a founding principle of this nation.

Let’s explore the history of this phrase and look at the words of the Founders and our government documents that will arm you with the true history of Christianity in our government’s history.

The place where most people mistakenly think this phrase originates is from the 1st Amendment, so let’s start there.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Emphasis added)

Do you see anything missing?  That’s right: our mysterious phrase!

So where did it come from?

The first known occurrence of the phrase “separation between Church and State” came from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association on 1 January 1802.

In the letter, President Jefferson was responding to concerns from the association seeking an assurance of their “[r]eligious [l]iberty.”  They go on to describe that their state charter was built upon the establishment of religion first and foremost (Puritanism) and that they had been forced to rely on the state to grant them the “privilege” of worshiping rather than enjoying it as an “inalienable right”.

Notice that the concern was not the influence of religion upon government, but the other way around.

President Thomas Jefferson

President Thomas Jefferson

In his response, President Jefferson, replied to this specific concern and assured the Baptists that the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the 1st amendment build a “wall of separation between [c]hurch & [s]tate” so as to protect the Baptists from an intrusive government establishing the official religion for their state as well as interfering with their right to worship as they please.

So, as you can see, history tells a much different story than what we hear in the mainstream media; and for that matter much different than our own Supreme Court has tried to establish through one of their opinions.

This is only one example of the mainstream media propagating a lie often enough that even well-educated Americans have begun to buy into their agenda.  Be sure to do your own research before simply accepting what your favorite radio or TV personality tells you—be it from the left or the right!

Read More