Defending "Culture"
He added: "We need someone to stand up to Barack Obama and his policies. We must protect our culture, our Christian identity."
This is implicitly racist, and I mean with a capital R.
Racism, as an ideology that arose in the past several hundred years,
has always a conflation of culture and biology. In fact, that is what
makes it racism. Dividing people into groups was never the project.
"Racial science" purported to show culture and behavior were a result of biology, of blood, and thus permanent. That difference in cultures were due to distinct, underlying, fundamental, and indelible differences in our physical nature. (For instance, "Caucasoids" were industrious by nature, and "Mongloids" had choleric blood and were such and such by nature. Suffice it to say that the portryals were always favorable to whites and disparaging of non-whites.)
The excuse of the modern racist that they are talking about "culture", not race, doesn't fly, since race has always been a confusion of the two, ie. a theory of biological rootedness for behavior and culture.
Obama is being treated as less "American" or less "Christian" than a light-skinned person would be, based solely on his appearance. Nobody talked this way about Bill Clinton. They hated his policies but never had to defend their "cutlure" from him (or, I might add, disputed his birth certificate). "Culture" here obviously means White Culture, proving my point.
Similarly, that people like Pat Buchanan (an amazing case of the MSM coddling an old-school bigot) don't *really* believe that
non-white people can really become fully "American", even after
generations in this country, just shows how they have a hidden theory
of biology. That somehow babies are literally born with a certain civic
tendency, a work ethic, religious values, etc. all based on their skin color/hair type.It sounds incredibly ludicrous when you spell it out, but works fairly well when left as innuendo.
The point is that "culture" here is being used to mean race. The
modern racist talks mostly about "defending culture". But
little has changed, since that is what racism has always been about.
















He was also talking of a "Christian identity". Religion isn't defined by race, but this comment is just as dangerously exclusive as any racist one.
July 23, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. And "Christian Identity" -- isn't that actually even refering to some specific hate groups?
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/?source=redirect&url=tolerance-maps-hate#s=AR
I see Christian Identity on that list for AR. Yikes.
And religion is even in the realm of the racist notions of culture. That is why the Spanish (the Inquistion) basically said, once a Jew, always a Jew, and persecuted even *converts* to Christianity. They talked about "blood purity" ('limpeza de sangra') when expelling and then persecuting the remaining *converted* Jews and Muslims who had renounced their old faiths.
July 23, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink