Disclaimer:
We would like to disclose that we participate in the Amazon Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. When you click on certain links on our website, there is a possibility that we may earn a commission from any resulting purchases.
In this complex tapestry of human societies, diversity and variegation are their greatest strengths. However, it will be egregiously dishonest to deny the existence of abhorrent vices like racism that regrettably create disparities within this beautiful ensemble of individuality. The insidious constructs of racism have envisaged scenarios where one racial group believes in its innate superiority over the other(s), an idea that has reduced cultures and individuals to mere stereotypes. However, this contemporary narrative indeed warrants an unorthodox, thought-provoking interrogation. Could it be that the systematic accusations of racism - largely an endeavor to foster a progressive society - paradoxically mirror the elements they allegedly vehemently denounce?
In recent years, certain social justice activists have become zealous guardians of ethic minorities, operating from a alleged well-intended albeit potentially misguided belief in their role as defenders. They claim to combat racial prejudice by championing the cause of individuals from marginalized communities, at a glance appears to be a stance that seems benevolent and timely in a racially charged world. Nonetheless, there is a compelling call to examine the deeper implications of such actions.
In a twist of irony, these 'anti-racist' crusaders often lambaste others for merely voicing critical, albeit at times a seemingly politically incorrect opinion (in this time of ridiculous wokeness), accusing them of being 'racists.' Isn’t it concerning that the act of identifying criticism as inherently racist assumes an inability within the defended groups to handle critique or debate? This protective intention could unwittingly imply an underlying assumption of superiority, an unconscious assertion that these groups require their defense due to an apparent incapacity to articulate or defend themselves. This belief, when sifted through the funnel of dictionary definitions, eerily echoes the essence of racism itself which rests on the notion of racial superiority.
Moving under the radar of these social justice activists are also certain pushbacks against holding certain racial groups accountable for actions related to behavior and crime, an inadvertent echo of the want to treat groups differently – based on their ethnicity – in societal expectations and repercussions. This act, though performed under the banner of fairness, subtly disseminates an underlying message that these ethnic groups are inherently incompetent to be held to equal societal standards, which again, distressingly reverberates the definition of racism.
Delving deeper into the roots of the American Civil Rights Movement, we turn to the words of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In his immortal words, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." The essence of his dream strives for individual accountability, devoid of racial hands, steering clear of making assumptions about racial capabilities.
This brings us to an uncomfortable question. Could these social justice activists, in constantly attempting to lower societal standards and expectations based on ethnicity, assert themselves as policy-making supremacists, inadvertently impersonating those they accuse of bigotry? Are they, unwittingly, the modern day, socially-accepted equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan?
Turning to a rather provocative metaphor, one might compare society to a jar containing a balanced mix of 100 white ants and 100 black ants. These ants, diverse in color yet essentially similar, can coexist peacefully under normal circumstances, illustrating that divisions based on race are not inherent but occur as a result of disturbances in their environment. But what if this jar is shaken? The ensuing chaos prompts the ants to attack each other, mirroring how societal unrest can breed racial conflicts. This raises a controversial but crucial question: Is the government shaking the jar? Is it possible that incidents of racial discord are, in part, orchestrated or amplified by those in power as a form of “smoke and mirrors” to divert public attention from major issues that ought to be addressed? Could they be instrumental in keeping us distracted and at odds, thereby suppressing the formidable power we could wield through unity?
The intention here is not to vilify those fighting genuinely for racial equality, but to scrutinize some of the methods that inadvertently foster further disparities in the process. Progress cannot be achieved by replacing old chains with new ones; it needs liberation from bias, prejudice, and long-standing notions of racial superiority or inferiority. It is a call, not for complacency but for introspection, a comprehensive look at the prevailing tactics in fighting racism to ensure they align with the dream of equality that icons like Martin Luther King lived and died for: judgment based on character, not color. For in creating a world truly devoid of racism, we must start by purging the supremacist beliefs within ourselves, even those borne out of the virtue of protection.
Thank you for reading this article. Please feel free to share your thoughts below. Let’s foster a community that shares and grows together at Hydra Club.