Obviously, the principal reason that we promote anti-anti-racism is that it works. Our partisans are full of resentment, including resentment at any suspicion that they’re being thought of as racist.
Yes, of course, we’re fully aware that, statistically, blacks get rougher treatment from the law, and that they lack intergenerational wealth, and on and on. But that discussion isn’t very hard to preempt. The “colorblind” response is a mainstay for us, a pillar. It’s not a good argument, really, but it doesn’t need to be.
The technique is called changing the subject. You want to explain to us why the Civil Rights Act was not enough, you want to talk about black folks’ “experience”? Clearly, you are racist, you don’t think people should be treated equally. You’re like the Klu Klux Klan, which focused on race and was the least colorblind, while we are striving to be the most colorblind. Why do you want to be like the KKK, what’s wrong with you?
Then we have the advantage. Special treatment for blacks? That’s reverse racism! White folks have an unfair disadvantage!
I like how frequently Dennis puts race-related videos on PragerU. There isn’t much to say of any real substance, but it fans the culture war flames, dominates the airwaves, keeps the conversation aloft. That’s where the focus should stay.
I’m not so sure here why he stuck in that goofy ending about Genesis not mentioning racism (and that Christians who defended slavery were just reading the Bible incorrectly…) Though, “Bible” is always a helpful flash word to include. As are “Orwellian” and “Martin Luther King” and “proof” and “anti-human doctrine.”
Truthfully, I wish there was more socioeconomic parity between blacks and whites. But we can’t afford to talk about that. Not because I dislike blacks. And not even because the discussion could lead to government spending increases (which would be an annoyance, certainly, though it might also help keep the Republican coalition riled up.)
No, the real, central reason is: the ideology of individualism and personal responsibility needs to be kept sacrosanct. If people start caring about the disadvantages that different children start out with due to their skin color, it could open the floodgates. As in, it could stimulate doubts like: maybe our society isn’t giving everyone a fair shake; maybe I myself have an unfair advantage; maybe the rich are skimming off most of the real benefits provided by government/societal infrastructure; maybe it’s time to reevaluate…
No. Everyone has what they deserve, by definition. Individualism must never be questioned. Everything hinges upon it.
(Harold Scrutape is a fictional character.)