Sunday, February 22, 2009

Race: Can the "Members" of a Race Be Defined?--An Eric Holder "Conversation" on Race!!!

Following Eric Holder's instructions, I am now going to continue my own personal "conversation" on race, as I prove that most leftists are racists when they want to discriminate ni favor of "people of color", and against "white Europeans". These are terms that cnnot be even defined, as skin color is a surface characteristic. It is not a fundamental characteristic of a human being. How can it be when we are all part of the same species, and when there is no blood test that can determine (with any confidence) what "race", or ethnic group, of which a person is a member.

If you treat people as individuals, it does not matter. Each individual gets the same treatment. However, if we base rights and privileges on the color of a person's skin, or ethnicity, as racist leftists want to do in "reverse discrimination", then it does matter whether we can even determine who "deserves" to be discriminated in favor of (by receiving a preference, such as extra test score points or in employment), and who "deserves" to be discriminated against.

To put it as bluntly as possible, there is no such thing as "black blood", or "Hispanic" blood, or Chinese "blood". The blood of all members of the species homo sapiens is red (in air). More importantly than that, all members of homo sapiens can interbreed with each other with fertile offspring, and do. That means that there is no such thing as a "pure" "person of color" or a "pure" white European. Who are the people who ignore this simple fact? Well, the members of teh Ku Klux Klan do. And so do most leftists, who are equally racist. When Reverend Wright talks about "people of color", there is no way for him to define his terms. We are all mongrels, of one degree or another.

Is Barack Obama "black", or African-American? Who says? We might presume he is 50% African-American, but even that is an assumption that cannot be made (much less the assumption that he is 50% "white European"). Was Oama's father "100%" black, with that Arab family name? If you are determining who deserves preferential treatment (in admission to a university , medical school, law school, or whatever), why does Obama (or someone else 50% "white European") deserve that special treatment? What percentage to you have to be to get the special treatment? 50%? 25%? 10%? 1%? Personally, I do not understand why every single person applying to medical school or law school in this country does not claim "minority" status. Who can say they are not? Who can say they are not "black" in their ancestry? This problem, of course, gets even more obvious when you get to Hispanics (who are mostly Caucasian in race).

Do we go back to the infamous "Black Codes", which "defined" a black person as being 1/8 "black blood" (the blood, again, is red)? "Murphy Brown" (yes the fictional TV show attacked by Dan Quayle on other grounds) exposed leftist hypocrisy on this "issue". There was one episode where a Congressman (or candidate) went on Murphy Brown's fictional TV show, and was given "talking points" by his racist backers. The main "joke" was that this guy had to talk about "rights" only for people who have at least 7/8 "white" blood. Do you need any more evidence that leftist are sanctimonious hypocrites of the industrial grade kind? How is it any more ludicrous to say that the extra "points" to get into law school (or be hired as a firefighter, or whatever) depend on whether you have 1/8 black or Hispanic "blood"? Murphy Brown was right. This is evil stuff, and the primary people asserting this absurdity in our society today are leftists.

You say that we must have to define this things somehow bo enforce discrimination laws? Ah, that is a very different thing, isn't it? It is not true that you have to define who is "black" to enforce discrimination laws. It is the motive of the discriminator that matters, and not whether he or she is right. These people are irrational anyway, and it does not matter whether they are rationally discriminating against a person for racial or ethnic reasons. All that matters is that the evidence shows that they are so discriminating. I am definitely not saying that there is no racial discrimination out there. What I am saying is that most of these irrational people out thre today, who insist on defining "rights" based on an irrational tining like "race" or "ethnic origin", are leftists. I dare any leftist out there (including Eric Holder) to define who he regards as "black". It can't be done, and it is evil to even try (in terms of assigning "benefits", especially by government action).

Say a person says he is "African-American". Well, if he is discriminated against on that basis, it is evil discrimination (whether the person is actually "African-American" or not). But say that same person says he is "African-American", and gets into medical school for that reason. It then matters a whole lot whether that person has a legitimate claim to that "status". However, it would not matter if we looked only at individuals, as we should, and did not insist on returning to the days of the "Black Codes".

Yes, one of the many problems here is that "reverse discrimination" (which is nothing more or less than discrimination on the basis of a person's skin color--sort of, since the peson may "look" white--or ethnic origin) is that it encourages dishonesty (sort of, since who can tell who is being dishonest)., I seriously recommend that everyone applying gt law school claim some sort of "minority" status. As I say, correctly, we are all mongrels. I don't see any reason that every single person applying to law school cannot claim to be some kind of "protected" minority (even "black", so long as you are not blonde with blue eyes). How can anyone "prove" you are a fraud? For that matter, it is not really "fraud", since the terms cannot be defined. I want to see the court case where a person is admitted to law school based on a representation of "minority" status, and then is told he cannot be admitted because he "lied".

Good luck on that one. The first problem is proving the person "lied". Under what standards? The second problem is that to even assert fraud, you have to admit evil discrimination. In other words, the school would have to admit that the person would have been discriminated against if he were "white European", because otherwise the "fraud" was irrelevant. The same applies to employment or "minority" contracting or whatever. The issue has actually arisen in minority contracting, which has often been a fraud.

Treat people as individuals, and you don't have these problems. Start giving people privileges based on race, and the problems become impossible to overcome. You are committing evil by discriminating on the basis of a surface characteristic, like "color", and there is no way around that evil.

That is why I call most leftists (all that favor privileges based on race) "racists". Whether they realize it or not, the assumptions on which they operate are the same assumptions that lay behind the "Black Codes". These assumptions are that people should be considered as members of a certain race, instead of individuals, and that you can define who is a member of each race (or "racial" group). Both assumptions are wrong. Both assumptions are evil.

To be continued, as I continue my "conversation" on race. The next entry will deal with myself, my daughters, and the strange and wonderful case of Hispanics. Are they really "people of color"? Who says? How can that possibly be defined? Stay tuned.

No comments: