Whitaker's Current Articles May 17, 2003
|
Fun Quote:
The Civil War was when the north invaded
American"
-- Granny Clampett on The Beverley Hillbillies
So What's the Problem?
Jayson Blair is a 27-year-old black man who sped right up into
reporting on major stories for the New York Times. It was a job
many a middle-aged, highly experienced white reporter would have
given his right arm for.
The New York Times just discovered
that Blair has been handing in fake stories for years. He
didn't even go to the places where the stories were.
A lot of talk shows that cover the
media have been discussing this Blair scandal. They all agree
that the fact that a reporter could publish fake stories for years
does not mean that anything else that was false ever got into the
New York Times.
A New York Times reporter some
years back got a Pulitzer Prize for a completely fake story and had
to give it back.
These are two that got caught.
The next question reporters ask each other on these talk shows is,
“Did Blair get his job because he was black?”
If you can ask that with a straight face, you’re a better actor than
I am.
The black man has a job for being black. He brought in stories for
years that were faked. He didn’t even go to the places he was
“reporting” from.
So what’s the problem?
A
fake reporter did some fake reporting.
Well, gee whiz!
And
Now a News Bulletin About Mammoths
About ten thousand years ago
there were mammoths in
North America and giant sloths in
South America. About that time the Indians crossed the land bridge
into America.
It had always been taken for
granted that “man destroyed the mammoths.” I remember seeing
pictures of white men in animal skins killing mammoths. It was the
ice age, but everybody was depicted as being half naked, which was
the signal for “barbarian.”
But when it came to
North America, the historians have
suddenly had a
Revelation.
They had routinely condemned
“Man” for killing the mammoths and showed those white guys doing it.
It suddenly hit them that Man, in
North America, meant Native
Americans, those innocent lovers of Nature.
You can almost hear the
"Screech!" of brakes as historians reassess this idea that Man
destroyed the mammoths. The mammoths had existed through millions
of years of ice ages and hot ages, but now the historians tell us
that they died out naturally at exactly the time the Indians got
here.
I am sure that we will soon be
told the Native Americans tried to save them.
Politically Correct History is a Game of Trumps
The last article is not about
mammoths. It is about the Blame Game of Political Correctness. We all
know that Political Correctness blames everything Evil on Mankind.
But leftism also requires that
all the sins of Mankind be the fault of the White Man. In contrast
to the Evil White Man, non-whites are highly moral beings who are at
one with Nature. This makes things a bit complicated, but modern
history always adjusts instantly in order to make it fit into the
Political Correctness scheme.
Fortunately, Political
Correctness can count on the fact that no college graduate does any
thinking at all. So when they showed white cave men killing
mammoths while running around half naked in the Ice Age, nobody
asked a single question.
So now when the image of Evil
Mankind collides with the Noble Native American Who Loves Nature and
who would not hurt Brother Mammoth, nobody asks about it.
When Indians came across the
land bridge, mammoths, who had survived millions of years and a huge
number of ice ages, just happened to drop dead.
So Politically Correct history
is a lot like a game of trumps. Mankind is Evil, but that is
trumped if the Mankind being referred to turns out to be non-white.
The Politically Correct Hate List
We have lived all our lives
with this game of Politically Correct Trumps, but nobody has put
down in detail exactly what the trumps are.
We all know that Political
Correctness says that White Men are Evil and that Non-Whites are
lovers of Nature and moral paragons.
Another rule of Political
Correctness is “Animals good, People bad.” So if man is greedy
that is just awful. If an animal is greedy he is just following
nature. When people destroy forests it is pure evil. When
elephants destroy trees, it just shows how nice they are.
So we know these two rules:
Whites Bad, non-Whites Good and People Bad, Animals Good.
But then we run into a case
like the mammoths. When it was white men killing them, history
declared man killed the mammoth. But if Man killed the mammoth in
North America, then those men were
non-white.
In this case “Man Bad, Animals
Good” runs up against “White Man Bad, Indian Good.”
Another rule of Political
Correctness is “Poor People good, Rich People Bad.”
Political Correctness lives on
Guilt, and there is no point in making poor people feel Guilty
because you can’t get anything out of them. So the Virtuous Poor
People are the victims of the Evil Rich.
You can get Guilt money out of
the Evil Rich.
But what about a case where a
person is a rich member of a minority? Here “White Man Bad,
Minority Good” runs into “Rich People Bad.”
Another rule of Political
Correctness says, “Men are Evil, Women Good." We know that men who
make unwelcome advances cause traumas that leave all women
psychologically wrecked.
But what if the woman is white
and the man is black?
White Bad, Black Good. So
isn’t it her fault for leading him on?
Make Up Your Mind, Do It Now and Do It Right
You have never heard any
liberal admit he was just plain wrong about anything.
You never will.
Political Correctness is never
wrong, and therefore Political Correctness never admits that it
changed its mind.
Every historian will tell you
that all decent people always knew that women’s rights were a good
idea. It was just sexual impotence or meanness that made men
oppress women.
Likewise black people.
Likewise animals.
So far it’s easy.
But it gets dicey when we run
into a case where historians have gotten everybody feeling
guilty about
the killing of the mammoths and then suddenly have to reverse course
when they realize they are blaming the Nature Loving Native
Americans for it.
The problem is that Political
Correctness insists that it never changes. If you get it wrong,
psychologists will explain how you were fundamentally Evil from the
get-go.
For example, PC says that men
oppressed women, not because they had the outlook of their own time
and place, but because men felt impotent or were just plain evil.
PC explains that a slaveholder
in 1750 was an evil man, not just a man who had been raised with
slavery.
In other words, those who
violate Political Correctness are Evil, not mistaken.
Like every other Inquisition, the
Politically Correct Inquisition says that if you're
wrong it is because you're Evil
and must be punished.
After all, only Evil People are
ever wrong. So no liberal is ever wrong.
All Inquisitions Are Like This
Nazism depended heavily on
selective breeding, race and genetics in general.
Communism depends just as
entirely on the idea that genes mean nothing and a Communist world
will make everybody equally smart and productive.
So when the Medicogenetic
Institute of Moscow did the mother of all identical twin studies in
the 1930s and found, as all such tests do, that heredity is vital,
Stalin killed them.
To quote Soviet sources, the
head of the Medicogenetical Institute, “confessed his ideological
error and was shot.”
In the Middle Ages it was
pretty routine for someone on the losing side of a theological
argument to end up being burned alive for his error. Even if half
the experts believed one way and half believed the other way until
the final decision, the half that was wrong was Evil and deserved
punishment.
In 2001 a Polish court – a
court in post-Communist
Poland -- determined that a
particular concentration camp had been part of the Holocaust.
It is a felony in
Poland to deny any aspect of the
Holocaust. So the minute that the court decided that that
concentration camp was part of the Holocaust, it became a felony to
say it was not.
So the Polish lawyers who had
argued against that concentration camp being in the Holocaust came
into the building arguing one thing, but they could and WOULD have
been arrested if they had said the same thing when they walked out
after the decision.
Several French scholars who did
research on the World War II period came to conclusions that ran
afoul of the Holocaust law. They were threatened with
imprisonment. The professors who oversaw their research were also
threatened with prison.
These researchers and their
professors actually cried and professed their complete orthodoxy.
In other words, they acted like anyone facing Heresy charges under
any Inquisition.
But this was not the Middle
Ages and this was not the
Soviet Union. This was Western
Europe in the 1990s. Not one single liberal, American or European,
saw the slightest problem with this. No academic, European or
American, made the slightest objection.
Academic freedom is one thing.
Heresy is another.
Academic freedom protects
leftist professors from the political right. But you cannot allow
Heresy in the name of academic freedom.
Questioning the left on campus
is not academic freedom. Questioning the left on campus is Heresy.
|
MENU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Issue |
Editor: Rick
Rowland
© 2003 WhitakerOnLine.org
|
Email List |
|
|