Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Why Americans cannot openly discuss racial issues (and should be able to)

On January 25, American Renaissance, a publication that promotes white culture (which to most Americans is the definition of racist), was informed by the Sheraton Hotel in Charlotte, North Carolina, that its convention contract was canceled by the hotel. The circumstances of this cancellation indicate that the hotel was heavily pressured by Charlotte mayor Patrick Cannon.

The interesting part of this story is how it was covered in Champion of Liberty Elizabeth Wright's Issues and Views. Remember, this is a black writer treating an allegedly racist white organization. She wrote in 2009 (and quotes here):

How is it possible, in these United States, that a group of people, who wish to get together to discuss a historical topic, must relentlessly hide their intention, obfuscate their meeting place, and keep their identities secret, if they don't wish to be hounded like wanted criminals? How is it that citizens who wish to meet peacefully do not have the protection of the law, in order to practice what the law supposedly guarantees, that is, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly?

How, indeed?  She then makes some particularly enlightening insights into the liberal mentality on race:

In our weirdly racially over-hyped universe, there is no latitude offered to those who would focus their sights on the subject of race and ethnicity in any other manner than that prescribed by the country's race monitors. Any aspect of the subject must be scrutinized only within the limits currently deemed permissible by a "diversity" obsessed society. Scientists and other researchers who have the temerity to explore such subjects as native ability, intelligence and I.Q., or other particular studies about biological differences between groups, are suppressed, and often denied an institutional affiliation. Some have been blackballed and banished.

This unenlightened, unscholarly approach, that leads to ignorance, is encouraged by liberals, who deem themselves the country's "intellectuals." They run most of the country's academic institutions, yet tremble at the prospect of applying their academic wits to subjects they have made taboo. To this mentality, the very act of investigating the taboo is an act of "hate." Yet, how can there be a subject that cannot be explored, researched, discussed and debated? What are these people afraid of discovering?

What these people are afraid of discovering is that people who really are not racist see others as individuals, not as part of groups. Seeing people as individuals frustrates the liberal agenda of leaving all power in the hands of the intellectually arrogant. In other words, it leads to the failure of propaganda.

I encourage you to read the original article. Like most posts in Issues and Views, it has been carefully researched and thoroughly thought out.

I support the First Amendment, in part because it enables us to find truth through reading and the free exchange of views. The problem is, the First Amendment lets people say things other people don't like to hear; or as my Constitutional History professor once put it, "The test of the First Amendment is the ability to allow the expression of opinions that are repugnant."

1 comment:

Buckeye Copperhead said...

Great post. AR should have as much right as anyone else to gather together and express their viewpoints. Anyone that would attempt to stop them becomes an enemy of the 1st amendment.