James Taranto: “Moral responsibility is the essence of humanity. It is what sets Homo sapiens apart from other animals. Assigning moral responsibility to whites while denying it to nonwhites is therefore a way of dehumanizing the latter. Multiculturalism turns out to be a disguised form of white supremacy.”
Via.
It’s interesting but a key aspect of multiculturalism is its insistence that ‘others’, ie, those-who-are-different, can enter the collective, BUT, they must remain ‘different’.
Multiculturalism insists on differences; it insists on distinctions of type and tone. So, you can become a participant in the group but, only, if you remain identified in your primary identity as a member of an identity bloc.
So, you can participate in the sports team or the bureaucracy or the police or the whatever as, let’s see, a member of a specific ethnic group. Or religion. Or gender. Or language. Or…whatever. You can never be just a member of the team. Never.
And, as pointed out, you are made up of different ‘stuff’ than the ‘whites’. They are responsible for problems; you aren’t.
yup ET, every targeted, for special consideration, group is actually treated as if they are not capable to be equal, so they need help from the lefties. The lefties just don’t get this. I’m just glad none of these lefties were around when we came to Canada:-)))
ET: “So, you can participate in the sports team or the bureaucracy or the police … as, let’s see, a member of a specific ethnic group. Or religion. Or gender. Or language. Or…whatever. You can never be just a member of the team. Never.”
Fortunately, the Christian Church doesn’t believe in official multiculturalism, though a more truly multicultural community you won’t find anywhere. Christianity emphasizes our sameness in relation to God: We are all equally loved by God and are called to be brothers and sisters to one another, whatever our ethnic background. Christians are called not to identify solely with their individual tribes but to become “a new creation,” loving God and our neighbour. Christianity doesn’t ghettoize visible minorities. (Sure, there are individual “Christians” who do but in the Body of Christ — His Church here on earth — we are called to be one.)
James Joyce got it right when he wrote about the Catholic/Christian Church: Here comes everybody!
(What the Leftards do get, NME666, is divide and conquer: The more we become separated from, and feel antagonistic toward, one another and the more dependent visible minorities become on the state, the better for the Leftard’s socialist governance.) That’s the Obamanation’s game.)
What I’ve always said. “Multiculturalism is the kinder, gentler form of apartheid.”
A country , governed by “blacks”, for “blacks”….
What is needed is not diversity, multiculturalism or all of the rest of the PC nonsense; rather, we need the rule of law, administered without prejudice and without bias.
That is what the 19th C British did so well, and it is why the filthy leftist attack them and attempt to belittle them. And, of course, the leftists always attempt to subvert the impartiality of the administration of justice.
It’s a great point, I’ve realized how eurocentric the left can be in denying historical and moral agency to non-whites. Everything is about “us” and us is race specific. They are particularly offended by changes or opinions that minimize historical wrongs. Accidental Racist was offensive to some people because it attempts to eclipse history rather than wallow in it. People were talking about closing reserves a few years ago and a caller to a radio station in Edmonton talked about how it was a bad idea – entirely in terms of a European “us”. We should feel guilty to even think of it, since we already took their land. No thought about how it would affect the people actually living on the reserves or what their opinion might be, he was entirely concerned with the feelings of white people.
If one has been paying attention, this smarmy racism is the normal mindset for these creeping progressives.
Many commentators have made that observation, funny how those the libtards claim to be helping, never seem to get better.
States that continuously and blindly vote Democrat have the worst opportunities for Negros.
Vote D, get generational poverty. New plantation just like old plantation.But we love and respect all minorities.The message vote for us,your betters and know your place.
ET and John Robertson raise excellent points. Yes, it is racism; political racism in that you as an individual have no value and do not count. You only count as a member of the collective – the group based on race, ethnicity, disability, sex and now your sexual practice. The great advantage of our English tradition and gift to the world was the recognition of the individual and individual freedom, from which sprang the rule of law whereby everyone is treated equally. Multiculturalism, diversity, affirmative action, speech and thought control are all means of implementing cultural Marxism.
Liberia worked out well, don’t you think, Happy?
didnt M. Jackson say he wasn’t living life as a colour?
Monique, you might want to reconsider whether multiculturalism is, in fact, “kinder and gentler” than apartheid (in the long run). When apartheid suddenly collapsed, South Africans showed a remarkable ability to come together to preserve the country that had been built up over the years. I’m not completely sure that many of our citizens will be able to move on from multiculturalism.
batb….there is one way to go through identical doors. One is guarded by an angel,protecting the way to Heaven. The other is guarded by a demon,protecting the way to Hell. No matter which door you open,you can ask one question.And what would be that question? And I ask in all seriousness.
Excellent comment, Alain. Yes, the recognition of the individual, individual freedom and the rule of law is indeed, the great English tradition.
The left rejects the individual and insists on the loss of that individual freedom within the Will (not Rule of Law) but the Will of the identity group. This Will of the Identity is almost innate, preserved, non-changing in history and dominant over any individual freedom or rights.
” Yes, the recognition of the individual, individual freedom and the rule of law is indeed, the great English tradition. ”
Yes, the recognition of the individual, individual freedom and the rule of law WAS NOT the great English tradition.
Fixed that for you. The monarchy is just a nice name for dictators. How many peoples did they rule over? How many countrys,tribes,clans,etc. did they “reign” over? Who authorized piracy and slave trading?
Justthinkin – ever heard of the Magna Carta of 1215 and habeas corpus? The rejection of Sovereign Will and its subservience to the rule of Law?
Locke and natural rights of equality and freedom?
The English Bill of Rights of 1689?
And of course, the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution?
Alain and ET: ” … the recognition of the individual, individual freedom and the rule of law is indeed, the great English tradition.”
Take one step back from that “great English tradition” and you discover that this great tradition is based on Judeo-Christianity. There is no great English tradition apart from Judeo-Christian principles and values.