One sentiment attributed to Abraham Lincoln long before his presidency considered villainy and the educated citizen. “Some of the greatest villains in history have been educated men. Without that education, they might have been honest citizens. A few years at college won’t make a bad man virtuous; it will merely put the polish on his wickedness [note 1].”
This probably explains one of the greatest fallacies in our system of higher education today; admitting scoundrels to universities who, in lacking laudable goals, simply make a rogue more refined, and therefore more dangerous within the confines of his chosen field. More the pity (for us) when a dishonest man enters politics, because there is no limit to what that person will do to achieve his or her own ends.
Much has been said about Abraham Lincoln and his true beliefs about the question of Negro slaves; people make of Mr. Lincoln what they decide is most important to them, reinforcing what they choose to believe about him. He was neither saint, nor thug, but he was a man of his own time. For example, prior to 1850 he was said to have argued that it is possible to have compassion for others without actually knowing them, and feasible to love all men while having contempt for their behavior. We suspect today that Mr. Lincoln neither liked or disliked Negroes more or less than he did any other human being; he may have cautioned thinking men (of which there were, and are, only a few) about confusing compassion for human suffering with adoring men simply because they were victims of slavery.
This brings us to the present time, when race relations has once again been brought to the fore courtesy of the anti-white rhetoric of black zealots and those ignorant souls who achieve and maintain the status of victims of a so-called oppressive white society. My good friend Tad reminded me not long ago that victimhood has been quite successful over the past seventy or so years. It is a historic fact that people have behaved wrongly against others, and some (even, too many) have learned to capitalize on it simply because it benefits them in a number of ways. I recall the sage advice given to me by my grandmother, who explained that every person stumbles and falls along life’s journey. What distinguishes a winner from everyone else is that the individual with fortitude gets back up, dusts him or herself off, and continues life’s journey. The victim will continue to lay in the gutter while seeking to capitalize on his or her misfortune; one of the best ways to do that is by placing blame on others for his or her own calamity.
One of the greatest and most successful proponents of victimhood in the 20th Century was none other than Adolf Hitler. He was a man who galvanized German society around the wrongs done to them by vengeful rather than honorable politicians of previous decades. Having accomplished such a remarkable feat, he then led the German people toward astounding, if not an overwhelming abuse of human rights and dignity.
I have often wondered how it was possible for Hitler to convince so many people to support his abhorrent policies. I’ve seen the films of massive rallies in Germany, where hundreds of thousands of people in the 1920s and 1930s were shouting Hitler’s name. I don’t speak German, so I am unable to say how eloquent Hitler might have been in convincing Germany to support his vision for change — but it does seem to me that he was almost always angry. Still, we cannot refute the fact that he was a very clever man, and that he in fact (for a time) achieved his goals.
With apologies for offending my reader’s sensibilities, I have noticed that political rallies today are not so much different from those in Hitler’s Germany. Like then, we today have thousands of adoring but mindless fans shouting out the name of their newest hope for change, and no one has any clear idea of the long-term consequences of his or her proposed changes. We continue to be devoid of citizen statesmen capable of separating rhetoric from reality, and people are lining up for extra doses of change for America without one iota of understanding of the likely consequences of their rash behavior.
In spite of the insulting sermons of black racist ministers proclaiming “God Damn America,” one House Representative opined that whites will likely vote for Barack Obama for no other reason than the guilt they feel from past injustices to black Americans. Democrat Emanuel Cleaver said, “I think whites would say, ‘How could anybody say we were racist, that we have any racist residue when you look what we just did (potentially electing Obama)?’ And African Americans would say, ‘Look at what we just did. So now, we ought to have unblocked access to all of our dreams, all of our hopes. And I think there would be great disappointment when they saw some issue of race surfacing. It would be like, ‘Oh my goodness. I thought we were past that.’”
In previous elections, it was a common strategy for politicians to divide American voters into voting blocks, and then pander to those interests in order to gain their support. Aside from the constant rhetoric, each voting block receives a message peculiar to their perceived interests: wealthy vs. poor, majority groups vs. minority groups, women vs. men, and so on. This year, however, it is not the politicians resorting to such tactics — it is the constituency doing it for them.
God help us if we are so ill informed of the true history of our country, including its experience with slavery and restrictive Jim Crow laws enacted by the Democratic Party, that white citizens are now willing to elect a black man president because they in some perverted way imagine themselves feeling the pain of the black community. No doubt, the black community is ecstatic. Obama is not the savior of our great Nation, and if elected to the presidency, this will become startlingly clear. But the dupes of the myth of white oppression over the past 44 years will at least find satisfaction bringing the rest of us down to the level of the least common denominator. In this case, the adoring crowd of Obama supporters should heed Mr. Lincoln’s advice: black citizens deserve no more, and no less compassion than anyone else.
Much has been said about Abraham Lincoln and his true beliefs about the question of Negro slaves; people make of Mr. Lincoln what they decide is most important to them, reinforcing what they choose to believe about him. He was neither saint, nor thug, but he was a man of his own time. For example, prior to 1850 he was said to have argued that it is possible to have compassion for others without actually knowing them, and feasible to love all men while having contempt for their behavior. We suspect today that Mr. Lincoln neither liked or disliked Negroes more or less than he did any other human being; he may have cautioned thinking men (of which there were, and are, only a few) about confusing compassion for human suffering with adoring men simply because they were victims of slavery.
This brings us to the present time, when race relations has once again been brought to the fore courtesy of the anti-white rhetoric of black zealots and those ignorant souls who achieve and maintain the status of victims of a so-called oppressive white society. My good friend Tad reminded me not long ago that victimhood has been quite successful over the past seventy or so years. It is a historic fact that people have behaved wrongly against others, and some (even, too many) have learned to capitalize on it simply because it benefits them in a number of ways. I recall the sage advice given to me by my grandmother, who explained that every person stumbles and falls along life’s journey. What distinguishes a winner from everyone else is that the individual with fortitude gets back up, dusts him or herself off, and continues life’s journey. The victim will continue to lay in the gutter while seeking to capitalize on his or her misfortune; one of the best ways to do that is by placing blame on others for his or her own calamity.
One of the greatest and most successful proponents of victimhood in the 20th Century was none other than Adolf Hitler. He was a man who galvanized German society around the wrongs done to them by vengeful rather than honorable politicians of previous decades. Having accomplished such a remarkable feat, he then led the German people toward astounding, if not an overwhelming abuse of human rights and dignity.
I have often wondered how it was possible for Hitler to convince so many people to support his abhorrent policies. I’ve seen the films of massive rallies in Germany, where hundreds of thousands of people in the 1920s and 1930s were shouting Hitler’s name. I don’t speak German, so I am unable to say how eloquent Hitler might have been in convincing Germany to support his vision for change — but it does seem to me that he was almost always angry. Still, we cannot refute the fact that he was a very clever man, and that he in fact (for a time) achieved his goals.
With apologies for offending my reader’s sensibilities, I have noticed that political rallies today are not so much different from those in Hitler’s Germany. Like then, we today have thousands of adoring but mindless fans shouting out the name of their newest hope for change, and no one has any clear idea of the long-term consequences of his or her proposed changes. We continue to be devoid of citizen statesmen capable of separating rhetoric from reality, and people are lining up for extra doses of change for America without one iota of understanding of the likely consequences of their rash behavior.
In spite of the insulting sermons of black racist ministers proclaiming “God Damn America,” one House Representative opined that whites will likely vote for Barack Obama for no other reason than the guilt they feel from past injustices to black Americans. Democrat Emanuel Cleaver said, “I think whites would say, ‘How could anybody say we were racist, that we have any racist residue when you look what we just did (potentially electing Obama)?’ And African Americans would say, ‘Look at what we just did. So now, we ought to have unblocked access to all of our dreams, all of our hopes. And I think there would be great disappointment when they saw some issue of race surfacing. It would be like, ‘Oh my goodness. I thought we were past that.’”
In previous elections, it was a common strategy for politicians to divide American voters into voting blocks, and then pander to those interests in order to gain their support. Aside from the constant rhetoric, each voting block receives a message peculiar to their perceived interests: wealthy vs. poor, majority groups vs. minority groups, women vs. men, and so on. This year, however, it is not the politicians resorting to such tactics — it is the constituency doing it for them.
God help us if we are so ill informed of the true history of our country, including its experience with slavery and restrictive Jim Crow laws enacted by the Democratic Party, that white citizens are now willing to elect a black man president because they in some perverted way imagine themselves feeling the pain of the black community. No doubt, the black community is ecstatic. Obama is not the savior of our great Nation, and if elected to the presidency, this will become startlingly clear. But the dupes of the myth of white oppression over the past 44 years will at least find satisfaction bringing the rest of us down to the level of the least common denominator. In this case, the adoring crowd of Obama supporters should heed Mr. Lincoln’s advice: black citizens deserve no more, and no less compassion than anyone else.
[1] George M. Fraser, 1971
|