Benevolent and munificent racism is still racism.
I have concluded American leftists thrive on stereotypes. They really dig them. As a mater of fact, stereotyping seems as natural as breathing to them.
Maybe it is because collectivists can only see collections. Since the individual is a mythical creature to collectivists, individuals are apparently invisible to them, and the only way collectivists can see people are as collections people categorized into a nation of different, disparate groups – and how do they aggregate and define those groups?
Why, by defining them through caricatures and stereotypes.
They stereotype conservatives as uncaring racists and bigots, anyone without a college degree as stupid and anyone in a blue-collar job as lacking ambition.
Lest I be accused of stereotyping myself, my observations are based on data, not an opinion or prejudice. It is an accepted fact the academic world is heavily populated with leftists. That much is evident in the actions of the teachers’ unions and to whom their contributions go. It is no secret that the Democrat Party is as well, over the last two decades having purged almost every non-leftist (in the old days, they were called Blue Dogs) from their ranks.
Given this perspective, is it so unbelievable that this stereotyping extends to minorities that traditionally support the left? Maybe women, too?
If one considers what the left thinks minorities need, from the quota systems embedded in affirmative action programs to reparations, to the current fad of “equity”, it conjures up images of minorities, especially black Americans, that they are not very smart, they are slothful and lack initiative, they cannot succeed on their own without guidance from someone with superior intellect, and they require some sort of advantage supplied by a benevolent benefactor.
The American left justifies this as some sort of “benevolent racism”. Like most of their counterintuitive, contradictory ideas, their racism is OK because they mean well.
Well, C.S. Lewis, the famous Christian apologist, had something to say about such things:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
The left won’t say it out loud, of course, but the “help” they propose defines what they think of minorities – actions always speak louder than words, and the image conjured up looks a lot like the depictions seen in the very Dr. Seuss books – “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” and “If I Ran the Zoo” – that the wokateers cancelled due to “racist and insensitive imagery”.
But it does explain why the left loves any “theory” that is based on stereotypes, especially those stereotypes serving to confirm their many biases. It also explains why the left hates any minority that refuses to conform to their stereotypical models – like Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Tim Scott, Candace Owens and other conservative blacks, Asians and Hispanics like them.
I just watched this linked video of a fifth-grade social studies teacher showing examples of the race strife she is perpetuating and calling it “teaching”.
It also does not speak well for minorities that they are willing to be limited by the left’s stereotyping just because there are crumbs in it for them.
The entire can of worms is pretty damn disgusting when you stop to think about it.
Kinda tells you who the real racists are, doesn’t it?