The risk of cancel culture, culture wars and intolerance
Sure, there is systemic racism, but that systemic racism does not originate where the media tells us it does.
Racism has a very clear origin. It comes from the same groups that today denounce the racism they created and maintain until today.
The attitude of accusing others of racism that they themselves have supported for more than a hundred years is the reflection that members of these groups see on their mirrors. It is the reaction of hatred they feel for themselves and their country.
It is important to point out the real reason behind their attitude of pointing fingers at their opponents when they cry over the existence of systemic racism.
The motive for wanting to erase history is an attempt to hide their role in the creation of systematic racism, to erase their responsibility, to excuse themselves for the social destruction they caused, and the accompanying doom of the societies they themselves control. In short, history accuses them of being the creators of systemic racism, so they want to erase that history to absolve themselves of all guilt.
History accuses the founders of systemic racism, so they want to erase that history to absolve themselves of all guilt.
When talking about racism, it is important to know the history of that racism. Many of those who today identify themselves as progressive and who hide under the umbrella of liberalism and extreme social ideologies conveniently forget the historical roots of systemic racism.
In the United States, where racist groups fight an open battle against preserving a cohesive society, with traditional values, the origin of the so-called systematic racism comes from the Democratic Party. This party is probably the organization with the clearest adherence to racism in that country.
From its very origins, the Democratic Party was the organization that promoted slavery and insisted on maintaining it. It is the same group that consciously abused aborigines in North America.
One of the founders of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson, was one of the promoters of racism since the Democratic Party was founded in the 1800s. Jackson was the president who signed the Indian Removal Act, which granted the system the power to abuse black people. In his first years of life, the Democratic Party, which favored the stripping of land from the hands of native tribes, ordered the displacement of those native populations to the far West.
In the mid-1850s, the Democrats of the American south supported the continuation of slavery, while in the north, the population advocated in favor of the liberation of slaves. After an arduous election in 1860, Abraham Lincoln emerged as the first Republican president and the figure who was vehemently opposed to slavery and who wanted their liberation.
Lincoln’s intention to end slavery was what led the United States to civil war between 1861 and 1865. Meanwhile, members of the Democratic Party called themselves, the “white men’s party”, and accused Republicans of being the “party of black men”, as if that was a sin.
After creating their Black Code, Democrats denied blacks the right to property, forcing them to work for low wages and pushing them further into misery. It was around this time that members of the Democratic Party founded the Ku Klux Klan. Like the Democratic Party, the Klan supported racist policies against blacks.
Former President Woodrow Wilson maintained that segregation was good for blacks. Roosevelt’s New Deal was based on a relationship with members of white supremacist groups who operated in different branches of the Democratic Party.
Roosevelt also acceded to Southern Democrats’ demand that a large portion of the New Deal programs went to the South and that blacks were excluded from the programs.
Domestic and farm labor, two main occupations for blacks, were excluded from federal benefits. Millions of blacks were ineligible to receive Social Security coverage and unemployment benefits.
Has anyone forgotten Jim Crow?
Recently, in the 20th century, the Democratic Party remained in power in most of the southern United States. Even today, Democrats continue to be the most oppressive group against blacks in the United States. During Bill Clinton’s tenure at the White House, the government accelerated the systematic imprisonment of blacks.
The current Democratic candidate to the presidency was the biggest supporter of a 1994 crime bill that targeted blacks far and wide.
Racism and bigotry today
What is the risk of allowing groups that historically founded and maintained systemic racism in society to erase parts of history that condemn them and cancel part or all culture while implanting intolerance?
Even the progressive academic leaders and “thinkers” of the radical left cannot justify such actions, and in fact, denounce it as dangerous conduct.
In a document signed by 150 progressive leaders, people like Noam Chomsky, Gloria Steinem, Ian Buruma, Margaret Atwood, Mark Lilla, and Martin Amis, warn that the intolerance shown by followers of their ideology does not favor society.
They denounce a growing “intolerance” by progressive American activism towards dissenting ideas. As the writing exposes, they consider that this takes its toll in academic and cultural environments, where there is signaling and boycotting, “disproportionate punishment” and a consequent “risk aversion” or self-censorship that impoverishes public debate.
“We must preserve the possibility of disagreeing in good faith without dire professional consequences,” they point out.
The letter warns that this “necessary reckoning” has also intensified “a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our rules for open debate and tolerance of differences in favor of ideological conformity.”
“The forces of liberalism are gaining ground in the world and they have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy, but the resistance cannot be allowed to impose its own style of dogma and coercion,” say the authors.
Critics often refer to this as cancel culture, which refers to the vetoes and the finger-pointing to creators or teachers for any deviation from the norms that these groups of Left-wing extremists support.
“The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is becoming more limited every day. It was expected from the radical right, but the censorship attitude is expanding in our culture,” says the letter, which does not directly mention recent specific controversies or the names of those attempting to erode public and open dialogue.
“Institutional managers, in an attitude of panic and risk control, are applying harsh and disproportionate punishments instead of applying thoughtful reforms. Editors are fired for publishing controversial pieces; books were withdrawn for alleged little authenticity; journalists are banned from writing about certain issues; teachers are investigated for citing certain works ”, describes the text, among other examples.
The debate over where zero tolerance for abuse ends and where the discrepancy begins to “cancel” also extends to the current revision of national statues and monuments.
President Donald Trump, who has engaged the culture war as one of his campaign arguments, focused on this issue in a long speech last Friday night, on the eve of Independence Day.
He accurately pointed out that “in our schools, our newsrooms, even in our boards of directors there is a new extreme left fascism that asks for absolute loyalty. If you don’t speak their language, practice their rituals, recite their mantras, and follow their commandments, you will be censored, persecuted, and punished,” he said.
In their letter, the intellectuals describe the president as a “threat to democracy”, but warn: “The restriction of the debate, whether carried out by a repressive government or an intolerant society, harms those without power and reduces the capacity for democratic participation of all”.
“The way to defeat bad ideas is exposure, argument and persuasion, not trying to silence them or wanting to expel them. As writers, we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk-taking, and even mistakes. We must preserve the possibility of disagreeing in good faith without dire professional consequences,” they conclude.