MLK’s dream of a color-blind society has yet to be realized in his own country. In the spirit of one of his most famous quotes, his children still
live in a nation where they are judged by the color of their skin, and not the content of their character.
One need only to observe the media hubbub
racial, sexual and gender “diversity” at the Oscars to infer that there is a general transfixion on one another’s transmutable characteristics,
sometimes at the expense of character and personal excellence. The race consciousness grew so intense a couple years back that the Oscars were
labelled #Oscarssowhite on account of the prevalence of that year’s fairer-skinned attendees, and not on the merits of anyone’s artistic works. A
writer for the New York Times recently summed up
popular sentiment in an article: “Hurrah! For the second year running, the Oscars won’t be so white.” Perhaps it is
not about the art anymore.
The Motion Picture Academy, having buckled from the pressure of twitter activists,
to adhere to new racial quotas when
it came to adding new members, publicly announcing an initiative to double the number of “minorities” by 2020. According to one nominee, this
process of “diversifying” (racial engineering) is reflected in the general “diversity” (less white, less male in appearance) of this year’s
But looking beyond the euphemistic preening of these race activists, we see here in their actions the blatant implementation of systematic racism in
order to achieve their preferred race-based outcomes. Rich, powerful, often white progressives, applauded by their media promoters and corporate
enablers, have taken it upon themselves to become the racial engineers of society.
Critical race theorists, post-modernists, and progressives have a point: racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. The problem is, they are the
This is why, within the last couple years, students of American universities (the most privileged people on the planet) are having race-segregated
commencement ceremonies, which appears to me a great leap backwards.
Judging by their stories
, school life among their
progressive/activist compatriots at Harvard must be so harrowing, they feel they do not belong among the general population on account of their
skin-color. These are our future leaders.
In 2016, institutions of higher learning, the press, civil rights groups, the supreme court, and even the 44th president, upheld and applauded
race-based college admissions
when it was
. Dr. King’s children, and many others, are still judged by the color of their skins, at least according to the most powerful
institutions and positions in the land. The institutional application of race upon the admission process in America’s universities, and the
subsequent racial engineering of their student populations, routinely applauded by the previous administration for its commitment to “diversity”,
has become a modern example of what systematic racism actually entails.
Those who employ the euphemism “viewing society through the lens of race” to describe their race theorizing are the problem to begin with. We can
go through history and find similar lenses in the eyes of the most egregious slave owners, segregationists, eugenicists and race nationalists. Armed
with the superstitious belief in monolithic racial populations, each of them afforded its own faulty racial generalizations, and used in tandem with
their repudiation of individual merit and worth, today's racists have came to much the same irrational conclusions of their white supremacist,
And “white privilege” is, at least in their mouths, the new euphemism for the same old feeling of white supremacy. The concept is essentially the
same, but the one who believes in it holds it with a sense of shame rather than pride. I suppose that is a step forward for the white supremacist.
Nonetheless, he still believes, on account of his skin color, that he is better off than his darker-skinned brethren. (I often pity the one who thinks
he can look at a man's skin color and derive his conditions from it, but then I harden my heart and hate them all the more). As the theory entails, if
a man is of a certain skin color, that man is afforded certain benefits from his society. His racial stock affords him a “handbag of privileges”
with which to help govern his affairs. In short, he is “born with a head start”, in direct contrast with “people of color” (which seems to me
the exact phrase a Klan member would use to describe people who didn’t look like him). Everyone else is, of course, worse off on account of their
own epidermis. This infantilization of “people of color”, and the self-aggrandizing and privilege-giving of lighter-skinned nationalists, is the
cultural remnants of white supremacy.
What we have today is the unequivocal, unequal application of institutional, societal, and cultural mechanisms on the basis of race, and not
individual merit. It is evident that the abstract group one happens to be born into can impede or otherwise facilitate his success, sometimes with
little to no reference to his personal merits.
This isn’t the antidote to segregation, white supremacy, apartheid, and racism, but their abject continuation. This isn’t racial justice, but
racial injustice. This isn’t civil rights and the equal application thereof, but systemic and institutional racial discrimination and preferential
treatment based on theories invented by white supremacists and scientific racists. Modern times aren’t color blind, but color focused.
Color blindness, individualism, and the post hoc judgement of individuals based upon their character, not their group membership and skin-colors, is
the only way to achieve true, pracitcal equality among races, which, in a quick analysis, are categories so fuzzy they aren't even worth using. We
certainly will not overcome racism by continually evoking it. In today’s age, MLKs children are being judged by the color of their skins, not the
content of their character, and it's a damn shame.
edit on 25-1-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)