Shortly after posting a terrorist rant to the internet around 8 am on Christmas Day, nineteen-year-old Jaswant Singh Chail was arrested inside the grounds of Windsor Castle with a cross-bow that he hoped to use to murder Queen Elizabeth II. Chail, who lived in a £500,000 semi-detached house in a private estate, announced his plan to kill the Queen because of the Empire’s massacre of Indian civilians at Amritsar in 1919. In his posting, Chail clearly stated, “This is revenge for those who have died in the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre. It is also revenge for those who have been killed, humiliated and discriminated on because of their race. I’m an Indian Sikh, a Sith.” Not surprisingly, British authorities hauled the young man off for psychiatric evaluation. The possibility that he had been convinced through exposure to an overwhelming educational, governmental and social media onslaught of anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-white propaganda which convinced him that there was need for a revenge murder of the Queen never dawned upon elites within British society. One wonders if Chail’s high school exposure to Britain’s imperialistic history — which certainly covered the 1919 Amritsar massacre –- spent as much time on the earlier massacre of British men, women, and children at Cawnpore (Bibighar) in 1857. Probably not. Regardless, in this age of ‘WOKE’ anti-Western history the message of contemporary culture is clear—all whites are ‘oppressors’ and all non-whites are victims.
Recent events in our own country confirm the real threat that WOKE politics and Critical Race Theory present to ordinary Americans of white, European ancestry. Since the late 1960s, the work of revisionist historians has led us to this point. The Left won a significant victory in the culture war when in 1987 Jessie Jackson led 500 protestors at Stanford in chants of “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Civ has got to go!”[1] Since then, the attack upon the basic tenets of European civilization has been non-stop. For a few decades, American’s of European descent have found themselves to be strangers on a majority of campuses’ that cater to every other culture. Since George Floyd and the rise of Critical Race Theory throughout our society, they’ve found themselves the “enemy” of humanity and the world’s greatest “oppressors.” Our elites have worked to not only eliminate white males from Fifth Avenue corporate advertising; they’ve succeeded in vilifying white children as “privileged” and hopelessly “racist.” Racial hucksters like Richard Delgado, Robin DeAngleo, and Ibram X. Kendi have made millions off of what can only be called the “The New Acceptable Racism.” One of the prominent features of this new racism is the falsification of the past for the purpose of “fundamentally changing” America’s future—one that will be tied to global elites and authoritarian forms of government. To accomplish such a goal, it is necessary to destroy an America that has as its current goal the inalienable rights of the individual and the belief in equal opportunity for all. The weapon to achieve this is to argue that the nation is inherently and irredeemably racist. As it was built upon the over-riding principle of white supremacy, entire systems of education, governance, law, and religion must be ‘reimagined’ or ‘recreated.’
Every demagogue needs a scapegoat—Marxists’ had the bourgeoisie, Hitler the Jews, Stalin the Kulaks, Mao western imperialists, and Pol Pot—intellectuals. Today’s scapegoats in the United States are “whites.” Those who disagree are labeled not only wrong and arrogant, but “fragile” in their feelings if they are white and “Uncle Tom’s” if they are Black.[2]
There can only be one consequence of this current attack upon traditional American institutions — a dangerously divided nation that is so weakened it can no longer function as a sovereign state let alone as “leader of the free world.” A by-product of this is the current attempt to degrade whites through the deliberate use of weaponizing historical falsehoods to the point where non-whites openly call for their oppression and subjugation.
History as a Weapon
An examination of the first step — the deliberate falsification of our past to illustrate how one evil race, whites, has mistreated all other races — may be illustrated through a few examples. It’s commonly accepted today that revisionist historians began false attacks upon our traditional history and culture decades ago. The effect has been nothing short of seismic. The current vilification of Columbus, begun by Kirkpatrick Sale in 1990, as a genocidal imperialist intent on conquest has been refuted by historians, but has nevertheless continued to be accepted in popular culture and Progressive circles.[3] The same may be said for the long-standing most popular book used on college campuses for decades, the very biased and overwhelmingly negative portrayal of our past by Howard Zinn, appropriately titled A People’s History of the United States.[4] From these and other contemporary writers on ethnic and racial studies such as Hanna Nicole-Jones or Ibram X. Kendi, historical events are routinely cherry-picked for the purpose of vilifying America’s past. Rather than attempting a comprehensive and balanced view of past events, these revisionist interpretations of our past are constructed through the deliberate omission of key facts. The Puritans, for example, are portrayed as genocidal expansionists who destroyed the Pequot tribe in 1637 — despite the fact the Native Americans who aided the English in this war outnumbered Puritans by more than four to one. Our Founding Fathers are demonized for permitting the institution of slavery within the Constitution—despite the belief of many of them that it was wrong and on the road to extinction. Their having to pick between having a united country with the means to overturn that institution or no country at all is seldom made clear. Nor, when discussing the origins of American slavery, is there mention that Africans and Ottomans actually enslaved Europeans for much longer time than American slavery.[5]
Most current school textbooks never credit the United States with being unique in the history of the world in having fought a devastating war consuming 750,000 lives so that one race could free another from bondage.[6] In discussing the Mexican-American War, details of the ruthless execution of 350 Americans at Goliad is often omitted. Zinn, for example, is silent on this war crime. The list of such omissions goes on. It would seem obvious from a cursory review of world history that all cultures possessed expansionistic, nationalistic, and ethnocentric periods. That the United States did as well should be no surprise. The difference is that, thanks to the efforts of revisionist historians and educators whose specialty is ethnic studies, our nation has now lost any balanced or accurate portrayal of our past. Critical Race Theory has now so successfully permeated our educational and governmental institutions that arguments to deliberately identify and oppress all members of the white race as privileged and to bestow victimhood status and preferential benefits upon all members of non-white cultures seems almost irrefutable.
Hollywood Propaganda
The falsification of history through omission is further aided by elements within our popular culture. Within the rap music industry there are strong elements of resisting all forms of authority, hatred of police, the glorification of crime, and the dehumanization of women. In several popular Hollywood movies such as Django Unchained, Lincoln, and Birth of a Nation, American history is deliberately falsified to leave desirable impressions upon the audience. All too often, the audience lacks the historical knowledge to know what aspects of racial hatred portrayed in the films represents authentic events and what is propaganda. The result is that all too many viewers believe and accept “fake history.”
Take Quenton Tarantino’s revisionist Django Unchained – a film that glorifies violence and racism through fictionalized events. White racism and hatred toward Blacks is an overriding theme and Django—a former slave—is able to exact revenge against a wide array of evil white characters. Even the main star, Black actor Jamie Foxx, joked while hosting Saturday Night Live that he starred in the movie and--"I get to kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?"--to a predominantly white cheering audience.[7] Even critics who loved the movie, admitted it had problems. Peter Bradshaw, film critic for The Guardian--who gave it five stars--described it as "unwholesome, deplorable, and as delicious as a forbidden cigarette."[8] Writing in the New York Times, critic A.O. Scott described Django as "crazily entertaining, brazenly irresponsible and also ethically serious in a way that is entirely consistent with its playfulness." Playfulness? In the way Jamie Foxx joked? The New Yorker's Anthony Lane didn't see it that way. He was "disturbed by their [Tarantino's fans'] yelps of triumphant laughter, at the screening I attended, as a white woman was blown away by Django's guns."
Renowned Hollywood actor, Steven Spielberg, similarly distorts real history in his award-winning Lincoln. Aside from angering many outstanding historians by having Lincoln utter uncharacteristic "godd - - - s" in the movie, two totally fictional scenes regarding race are woven into the epic film. In one scene Lincoln sits alone as Union troops--black and white--are being shipped off for the attack against Wilmington in 1865. He interacts with two Black soldiers and discovers one has been fighting for over two years. The younger Black soldier, however, repeatedly interrupts the conversation in order to lecture Lincoln about the unequal treatment of Negro troops and the slow pace of equality. He sarcastically notes that perhaps one hundred years hence, Blacks may finally be afforded the right to vote. They are joined by two white soldiers who are deliberately portrayed as less patriotic, less cerebral, and less aware of the importance of what's at stake in this war. When one asks Lincoln how tall he is, the other exclaims "Geez, shut up." They admit they've only just joined the Union cause, but that they were present as civilians at Gettysburg to hear Lincoln's speech. When Lincoln asks them if they remember what he said there, one responds, "No, not much," They try to recite portions of it, but stumble in the attempt to recollect Lincoln's most memorable words. As the soldiers are called away, the lone impertinent Black soldier is left standing alone with Lincoln. He slowly walks away flawlessly reciting Lincoln's vision of the nation having "a new birth of freedom." The director makes it a point to show the audience that, unlike the white soldiers, this more militant Black soldier fully grasps the real meaning of the Civil War. In another scene Speilberg deliberately uses Black soldiers to officially escort members of a Southern Commission on Peace to meet secretly with Lincoln. In reality, Lincoln was wise enough to not have so deliberately insulted Southern attempts to reach a peaceful end to the war--no Black troops actually escorted the Confederates safely to the meeting. Speilberg is a master at pulling the emotional strings of his viewing audience, but overstating the patriotic contributions of Black soldiers to the success of Northern arms and his implied denigration of white soldiers to the cause of freedom through these fictionalized events were both unnecessary.
Perhaps the worst piece of Hollywood racial propaganda is Nate Parker’s “Birth of a Nation.” His movie suffers from the same propagandistic weaknesses as D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film of the same title, but with none of the breakthrough filming techniques of the original. Parker presents a heroic though fictionalized view of Nat Turner—leader of the largest slave revolt in U.S. history—with himself in the lead role. To accomplish this, Parker creates false scenes that deliberately demonize southern whites and he omits real facts that present a negative view of Turner. One of the falsehoods in the film portrays Turner being whipped for daring to baptize a white man during a religious revival. Another is Turner's being hit for simply returning to a white child a doll she had dropped. Another is his supposed marriage to a slave woman who is gang-raped and brutally beaten by white men. Yet another is his master’s consent to the request of another white man to be allowed to rape one of his female slaves. Still others are his successful seizure of the town of Jerusalem, Virginia, only to be ambushed there, and Nat’s being the only slave to escape. Fnally, Nat is falsely portrayed as turning himself in order to spare the lives of innocent slaves who are being murdered in retaliation for his revolt. The film ends with Nat courageously heading toward his fate on the gallows. In a Christ-like gesture he is seen forgiving a sobbing young black child who betrayed his cause and now—like Judas—regrets what he has done. The film ends with presumably this same boy having grown up and now fighting as a Union soldier to achieve Turner’s goal of ending slavery.
In addition to the many falsehoods designed by Parker to deliberately portray Turner as heroic, he omitted key facts that would have portrayed the man negatively. Viewers do not see Turner as the murderer of mostly white women and children, even sleeping infants. Nor do they see his master and his wife brutally murdered with an axe as they sleep. They do not see him murdering young Margaret Whitehead by repeatedly stabbing her with a sword and then bashing her head in with a fence rail. Nor are realistic scenes of children being decapitated portrayed. [9]
Nate Parker, however, attested to the overall accuracy of events portrayed in the film. At the Toronto International Film Festival he insisted the film was predominantly grounded in fact saying, “For me, historical accuracy was very important.”[10] Historian David Breen, author of an acclaimed history of the Turner revolt, weighed in on the accuracy of Parker’s movie. In addition to the above inaccuracies, Dr. Breen described as "false" the charge that hundreds of Blacks were indiscriminately killed in retaliation for Turner’s killing spree.
Other parts of Parker's indictment against America describe other places but not Nat Turner's Virginia. For example, the indiscriminate lynching that Parker notes led to hundreds of deaths in Southhampton actually did not happen. In Southhampton, slaves were the most valuable form of property and tax records reveal that whites killed roughly three dozen slaves as the revolt was put down. Some of these murdered blacks were surely innocent, but the rebel force numbered about sixty at its peak, which suggests that the vast majority of those killed after the revolt were in fact rebels or their allies. [11]
In reality, Turner was the property of four men. In the film, however, Parker portrays Samuel Turner as his single master and a cruel drunk who pimps out the wife of Nat’s best friend. In real life, Turner described Turner differently—as a “kind master in fact….I had no cause to complain of his treatment of me.”[12]
In his review of the film, Ronald Davis acknowledges that “the film takes wide liberties with history” and that “…some members of the audience inevitably will absorb the film as a factual representation.”[13] More will do so when the director openly professes that “historical accuracy was very important” to his work. And this is the danger that such films present to our racially divided nation. A prominent Black journalist and former African-American studies major admitted the film contained “unforgiveable historical inaccuracies” –- the greatest of which was what motivated his revolt in the first place. Rather than the fictional rape of a supposed wife which Nat never acknowledged in life, almost all the evidence points to Nat’s religious convictions and divine visions as being the inspiration for the rebellion. "The rape plot device was unnecessary, awkward, uncomfortable and poorly executed. By inserting it, 'Birth of a Nation' tainted the sacred history of one of the greatest figures in black history."[14] When this reviewer was told by colleagues that as a Black man, he shouldn't be critical of the movie, he responded, "I do not support films blindly ... Historical accuracy--at least in the broad facts, if not the small details--is paramount."[15]
Needless to say, however, despite the occasional critical review, Parker won huge acclaim from the predominantly white film industry for this lopsided portrayal of Turner. He did so despite previous rape accusations from 1999 against both himself and his co-writer, Jean Celestin, which re-surfaced at the time. His accuser, an 18-year-old 4.0 GPA white female student at Penn State University who claimed she was intoxicated and sexually assaulted by Parker and his roommate, twice attempted suicide after being continually harassed by Parker on campus. Distraught over what she considered the university’s lack of support for her gang rape charges—she later won a court settlement against Penn State—she eventually took her own life in 2012.[16] Her sister wrote several scathing editorials about Nate Parker—whom she blamed for her sister’s death—as his movie won wide acclaim and was seriously being hailed as the major contender for the Academy Award.[17]
Ronald Davis ended his 2016 review by stating, Nate Parker's The Birth of a Nation should be seen not for its historic content but for its commentary of this moment in American history.[18] No statement could be more welcome by everyone in today's hostile political divide. Thoroughly fictionalized accounts in which one race is deliberately demonized in what can only be called works of racial-propaganda obviously does little to advance an honest conversation about race relations in America. On the contrary, such untruths helped lead to increased racial violence and intolerance. "Birth" came out during a time of racially based 'knock-out game' attacks upon innocent Americans and an increased emphasis on racially incendiary educational workshops based upon Critical Race Theory. Worse still, such falsehoods contributed to the call for our nation to return to a period of judging Americans solely by the color of their skin. As Critical Race theorist Ibram X. Kendi has written, "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."[19] The new discrimination being called for, of course, is leveled now solely against whites and should continue until every measure of equity and all statistical disparities between Blacks and whites are erased. Average annual incomes among ethnic and racial groups in America apparently don't count. CRT advocates ignore the fact that American citizens from India, Japan, Korea, Nigeria, and many other non-English and non-white groups already exceed the average annual incomes of whites.
What's at Stake
The current demands for equity, not equality, threaten to destroy the nation's progress toward the achievement of a color-blind society. BLM and CRT activists, in fact, no longer believe in color blind policies but rather in color-conscious ones. For these extremists, affirmative action policies that have permitted systematic discrimination against white males for the past 60 years are no longer enough. In demanding equity of outcome in all aspects of life among racial groups, positive discriminatory practices against all whites must occur in every area where any disparity in outcomes is found. All such disparities, they argue, are the result of white supremacist doctrines and all whites, regardless of income or individual circumstance, benefit from "white privilege." Thus, to erase current racial health disparities such as infant mortality or life expectancy, New York City has recently determined in the name of equity to prefer non-whites over whites when dispensing life-saving anti-Covid medicines.[20] Similarly, when Oakland's Progressive mayor, Libby Schaaf, unveiled a program to provide financial aid to low income families, it was made clear no white family would be eligible for aid because the average family income for whites was above the norm.[21] Due to her use of average incomes among the races, none of the city's 10,000 whites would living in poverty could be considered. Such race-based preferential policies that benefit minorities are sweeping across the nation and pose a danger to all Americans. For example, because Black males are "disproportionately arrested" for drive-by shootings, Washington state Democrats are pushing to reduce penalties for such crimes. In one Texas county alone, 156 people were killed by violent criminals for whom little or no bond was required.[23] Efforts to bring equity in arrests by race only result in the death of more innocent Americans of all races.
In addition to Hollywood propaganda, there are considerable forces within our current political and social climate that foster animus between the races. Today, entire industries are devoted to ameliorating the harmful effects of race in our society. Diversity experts abound throughout business, government and academia. Mandatory 'white privilege' workshops are a common cultural phenomenon. Moreover, any difference in end outcomes between members of legally protected minorities and non-protected groups (whites) is now attributed to racially adverse practices, even if there is no intent to discriminate. Thus, higher school graduation rates for white students are today seen as prima facie evidence of racial discrimination against Black pupils. This theory, known as "disparate impact," is cited by educators and lawyers to bring countless lawsuits against innocent plaintiffs who argue other factors are responsible for the disparity. This same reasoning is applied to those who dare claim "all" lives matter when faced with today's racial activists who proclaim that only "Black lives matter." Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists see the statement "all lives matter" as insulting and racist. Those who disagree with BLM on this statement have been routinely fired from their jobs, occasionally assaulted, and even killed. [24]
Is there evidence that Hollywood’s falsely depicting racial incidents contribute to increased racial tension and even violence against whites today? A cursory review of statements by those arrested for acts of racial violence suggests this may be the case. Today, when the national media deliberately try to ignore hostility toward whites, postings by ordinary citizens to Twitter and Facebook contain dozens of such examples. When the crimes are so egregious that it’s necessary to report on them, as in the case of the accused murderer Darrell Brooks in Waukesha, WI--who used his SUV to deliberately run down and injure over 40 white Christmas revelers--the stories lack follow-up and important incriminating evidence posted to social media sites is censored.[25]
When taken in their entirety, it's clear that the basic tenets of Critical Race Theory and its advocates pose a real threat to the safety and lives of innocent Americans who by birth happen to be white. They are, however, but one arrow in the quiver of activities designed to "fundamentally change" America. Efforts to end the federal system of government by continually resorting to national programs that eviscerate the protections of the 10th Amendment, the current use of a supreme authority vested in an authoritarian chief executive who acts against the pinciples of the Constitution's separation of powers, and the open vilification of our justice system, law enforcement agencies, and the our military all seek the same goal. Indoctrination at all levels of our educational systems, control of our national media, an oppressive taxation and vilification of the rich, and an open borders invasion that first dilutes and then destroys an American electorate founded upon democratic and traditional family values may soon succeed in forever erasing our democratic legacy.
ENDNOTES
[1] Robert Curry. “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Civ Has Got to Go,” (Charlemagne Institute: June 11, 2019). Web. Accessed HERE . [ https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/hey-hey-ho-ho-western-civ-has-got-go/ ].
[2] Robin DeAngelo. White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard For White People to Talk About Racism, (Beacon Press: Boston, 2018).
[3] William H. McNeil. "Review of the 'The Conquest of Paradise' by Kirkpatrick Sale", (New York Times: October 7, 1990.) Accessed HERE, December 30, 2022.
[4] Roger Kimball. “Professor of Contempt: The Legacy of Howard Zinn”, (National Review: New York, February 3, 2010). Accessed HERE December 30, 2022.
[5] Jack Bovee. “The Biggest Lie of Critical Race Theory”. Accessed HERE, December 30, 2022.
[6] Jennie Cohen. “Civil War Deadlier than Previously Thought?” Accessed HERE, December 27, 2022.
[7] "jamie Foxx Jokes About Killing 'All the White People'", (Fox Nation: December 10, 2012.) Archived from the original on May 11, 2013. Retrieved December 31. 2021.
[8] Peter Bradshaw. "Django Unchained--first look review," The Guardian: London. Archived from the original on December 17, 2013. Retrieved December 12, 2012.
[9] Stephen B. Oates. "Children of Darkness," American Heritage v 23 Issue 6: (October 1973). Accessed HERE on December 22, 2021.
[10] Patrick H. Breen. "'Birth of a Nation,' The Historian's Review: A Scholar Considers the Past in Parker's Movie for Today", (Deadline: October 7, 2016), Accessed HERE on December 22, 2021.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Breen.
[13] Ronald Davis. "Historical Perspectives on The Birth of a Nation (2016)." (Not Even Past: December 12, 2016). Accessed HERE on December 22, 2021.
[14] Clay Cane. "Birth of a National: A Historical Injustice," (CNN: August 7. 2016). Accessed HERE, December 22, 2021.
[15] Ibid.
[16] "Ex-Wrestler gets new trial in assault case," (Daily Collegian: November 1, 2005.) Accessed HERE, December 22, 2021.
[17] Sharon Loeffler. "Nate Parker's 'Birth of a Nation' Exploits My Sister All Over Again," (Variety: September 29, 2016). Accessed HERE on December 23, 2021.
[18] Davis.
[19] Ibram X. Kendi. How to be an Anti-Racist, (New York: One World Press, 2019).
[20] John Levine. "NYC will consider race when distributing life-saving COVID treatments," (New York Post: January 1, 2022.) Accessed HERE May 14, 2022).
[21] Bevan Hurley. "City of Oakland Mayor is Branded Racist..." (Daily Mail: March 24, 2021). Accessed HERE on May 14, 2022.
[22] Jordan Boyd. "Washington State Democrats Want to Pull Back Penalties for Drive By Shootings," (The Federalist: December 31, 2021). Accessed HERE on May 14, 2022.
[23] Louis Casiano."Texas' largest county sees more that 150 killed by suspects out on bonds, victims group says," (Fox News: January 4, 2022.). Accessed HERE on May 14, 2022.)
[24] Kyle Morris. "Former Football Coach Fired...." (Fox News: December 4, 2021). See also: Joshua Rhett Miller, "NJ Cop FIRED for Post Berating BLM Rioters as 'Terrorists'" (NY Post: May 4, 2021, available HERE) and Rowan Dean, "People Cancelled, Silenced, and Shot for Saying All Lives Matter," Australian Sky News: July 18, 2020.) Available HERE.
[25] "Suspect in Wisconsin Christmas parade killing has long criminal record, released on bail just days before," (Life Site News: November 23, 2021). Available HERE.
To download a PDF version of this opinion piece, click HERE.
---------
Jack Bovee
Fort Myers, Florida.
The writer has been a social studies educator, founder of Rho Kappa--the National Social Studies Honor Society--past president of the Florida Council for the Social Studies, and a former Elementary School Principal of the Year in Lee County, Florida. He may be reached at: jsbovee@aol.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment