archive

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Everyone’s a Winner!

I generally avoid discussing race in these pages. My discussions on illegal immigration focus on the outrage against the rule of law, and the disruption of cultural cohesion, rather than the incidental -- but admittedly salient -- feature of race. I’ve convinced myself that if there were hoards of troublesome Swedes and Danes swarming over our shores like so many running grunions, my position would be not one whit different. And, um, you know, uh, some of my best friends, huh, are, you know, um, uh, heh, Mexicanos, as we say.

Well. Today a fellow was trying to describe a guy to someone. “You know -- D.” No recognition. “He wears glasses.” Nothing. “Little guy, glasses.” Nope. So I piped up, “Little fast black guy.” “Oh.” Voila.

Then I said, “You know, it’s alright to say black. I’d expect to be described as the tall skinny white guy.” And another fella said, “I’m the fat Mexican.” And another said, “I’m the half-breed.” And it was funny.

Maybe because of the self-deprecation. Maybe because of the innate tensions, among reasonable people, that racial differences still evoke. It calls back to our tribal days, when society and family and race were all the same thing. Well, no matter. If it ever can, it will change with time. But I think there are such tensions even in mixed marriages. Lord, what a term. “Mixed marriage.” Isn’t the mixing of two genders enough of a mix? The mixing of two genomes? No, race still matters.

Of course what matters, in any such judgments, is not race, but culture. And even culture isn’t the point, so much as conduct. I like people to be quiet -- subdued and courteous. But I’m from the ’50s, and I’m clearly out of step with the presiding weltgeist. Such a burden I bear, to be so good in such a wicked world.

So what is today’s outrage? Of course: racial preferences in university admissions -- they’ve taken to calling it “diversity” -- crafty devils. Another, more accurate term, would be “racism”. There is nothing possible to say on this subject that isn’t obvious. When we hire a lawyer, we don't hire him because of color, but because of a presumed ability to achieve a certain goal. Obviously.

The conceit, the excuse, is that there is a salubrious effect on the student body, by being exposed to this diversity. As if there were only one race allowed in public. Ahem: whether we sit in a classroom or walk down the street, we are exposed to the same quality of diversity. Obvously. So why discriminate, to get diversity in the classroom that might easily be found in the park? This is not sense, or justice. This is a weak and implausible subterfuge. Obviously. Obviously.

To herd black students into elite university seats, when they have performed at non-elite levels in high school -- this might be called 'lambs to the slaughter.' And to discriminate against Asians because they have a culture that honors scholarship and diligence? How is this not Manzanar? Obviously.

Since these schools accept government funds, are they not subject to the strictures of the 14th Amendment? "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." What seems relevant, and OBVIOUS, is that thing about equal protection. That means, to me, equal treatment. For Asians, as for blacks, as for whites. For all of us.

We are not all equal. Obviously. Some of us achieve superior results with less effort. Hardly fair. But the rising of excellence, earned or innate, benefits our culture. Ours is not the despotism of that oriental potentate who walked through a field of poppies cutting down the tallest as a warning to his subjects -- that none might believe himself worthy to rival the king. We dare, here, to rival every man, and if we have the ability we might prevail. If we fail, we must find our excellence somewhere else. How is this wrong?

Cultures that encourage mediocrity deserve to fail and become extinct. We accommodate mediocrity -- we do not promote it. By we, I mean intelligent and sane people who want to contribute to the beauty of the world. As for them, well, where’s an oriental potentate when you need one.


J

3 comments:

GUYK said...

Somewhere our society has confused the constitutional right for equal opportunity with a right for equal success. Opportunity for success also means opportunity for failure..there are no warrenties..just opportunities

drj said...

Jack: Right, right, right on!


Couldn't agree more-- esp. about the inauspicious impact on our society of the "diversity" sham. Indeed, the emperor has no clothes.

James Fletcher Baxter said...

Consider:
The missing element in every human 'solution' is
an accurate definition of the creature.

The way we define 'human' determines our view of self,
others, relationships, institutions, life, and future. Many
problems in human experience are the result of false
and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised
in man-made religions and humanistic philosophies.

Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe.
The balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human
reason cannot fully function in such a void; thus, the
intellect can rise no higher than the criteria by which it
perceives and measures values.

Humanism makes man his own standard of measure.
However, as with all measuring systems, a standard
must be greater than the value measured. Based on
preponderant ignorance and an egocentric carnal
nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton
task of excuse-making in behalf of the rule of appe-
tites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands.

Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament,
cannot invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist
lacks a predictive capability. Without instinct or trans-
cendent criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with
foresight and vision for progression and survival. Lack-
ing foresight, man is blind to potential consequence and
is unwittingly committed to mediocrity, collectivism,
averages, and regression - and worse. Humanism is an
unworthy worship.

The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with
a functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the
foot-dragging growth of human knowledge and behav-
ior. Faith, initiated by the Creator and revealed and
validated in His Word, the Bible, brings a transcend-
ent standard to man the choice-maker. Other philo-
sophies and religions are man-made, humanism, and
thereby lack what only the Bible has:

1.Transcendent Criteria and
2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation.

The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival
equipment for today and the future. Only the Creator,
who made us in His own image, is qualified to define
us accurately.

Human is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by
nature and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of
Criteria. Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive
characteristic is, and of Right ought to be, the natural
foundation of his environments, institutions, and re-
spectful relations to his fellow-man. Thus, he is orien-
ted to a Freedom whose roots are in the Order of the
universe. Selah

- from The HUMAN PARADIGM
http://www.choicemaker.net/

semper fidelis