Reverse Racism, edited

This topic has been floating around in my thoughts for the past few weeks after it was mentioned by a friend. I've done some online research, read several articles in books I own, and especially searched the Bible for what it has to say on the subject of reverse racism, so any ideas that I come up with are not original. The book that was the most helpful in clarifying my theories was "Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture", by Gene Edward Veith. I highly recommend it.

I had to decide, initially, how the actual question should be formed. Was the issue
- "Does reverse racism exist?"
- "Should reverse racism exist?"
- "What should the government do/not do about reverse racism"?
- "What should we the people do about reverse racism?"

In answer to the primary question, yes, I do believe that reverse racism exists in the 21st century in America. The extreme prejudice white males (and even, to some extent, white females) meet with when they attempt to express pride for their "heritage" or "identity" on a college campus is just one example of an underlying racism against white Americans. To the second question, no, I think reverse racism should not exist, and the reasons why will hopefully become clear as I delve into the last question. I will leave the question about the government's role until the end.

In defining who "we the people" are it is necessary to decide whom the word "we" involves. Does this mean American citizens, humanity as a whole, or the individual according to his own convictions? The only way I am able to answer the question "what should we the people do about reverse racism" is by looking at it through the lens of a person who believes that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and is completely relevant to every facet of life. As I see it, there is no sacred/secular divide in the Bible's applicability.

Cultural identity is an intrinsic part of the human heritage. Whether one is from Ireland, England, Africa, Brazil, or Japan, societal traditions will most likely have some influence over your personal, familial, religious, or public life. There is nothing inherently wrong with this; however, when a person becomes a Christian, their allegiance must change. "Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all" (Colossians 3:11). Also, in Galations 3:27-28, "All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". This means that the outward identification of gender, ethnicity, or class status is no longer the most important means of determining one's position, because true self-identity is found in our relationship with Christ, the ultimate equalizer of human "rank". Membership in the body of Christ transcends fidelity to any other human institution. This was just as radical when Paul preached it to the early Christian church as it is today, when the echo effects of past slavery and past/current immigration can still be seen in America.

Now, this does not mean that the Bible is implying that individuality is wrong. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul makes his statements about the body being a unit made up of many unique parts that are unified into one Church, in order to use their combined specific talents for the glory of God. Unlike postmodern culture, however, with its conformist demands, the unified Church does not seek to strip each member of their personality. Instead, it recognizes the need for a unity of individuals. The Trinity is an example of this: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the three Persons of God in one perfect Union, while still performing in their distinct roles. It is in the Church that community, culture, and the individual can find their equilibrium.

While anyone who pays attention to the times can see the current trend of conformist culture pervading America, there is also a more political trend of segmentation into special interest groups. These began forming when the need for finding one's identity was sought in activism for a particular groups' "rights", such as the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the gay rights movement, the environmental movement, etc. Appeals to a fundamental sense of right and wrong generally crop up; the "right for a woman to choose how to use her own body"; the "right to vote regardless of skin color"; the "right for our children to enjoy to a clean earth". Several breakthroughs were made that have real moral precedence, with one of the most important being the promise of equal treatment, both in law and society, of all people no matter what their gender or "race". (I put race in quotations because I don't agree with the connotations of that word; I believe we are all one race, the human race, and that there are certainly ethnic differences, but we are equal in our humanity. "Race" implies belief in distinctive physical characteristics of various people groups which came about due to macro-evolution, for which I find no real scientific proof.)

However, with this divide into special interest groups came the added difficulty of finding any common ground between them to work out their issues. Each group had their own agenda and a collectivistic system of ethics, both of which might very well be at variance with society-at-large. But eventually the special interest groups became so numerous and so voluble in their demands for equal treatment that there was no longer a separate societal majority to either oppose or accept them. What might once have been called "multiculturalism" in America now devolved into relativism, "the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute" (from the dictionary). The special interest groups could no longer aspire to a common "moral" claim of rightness. This postmodernist mindset of "no absolute truths" effectively disabled these groups from being able to communicate with each other, let alone reach any solutions to their issues.

The morally defunct state of these special interest groups could only drive them into conflict with each other. Without a shared moral system to provide a guiding sense of innate right and wrong, the scene was reduced to a power struggle between factions in the political (public) climate. Opposing groups now turn society into a battleground, "pitting the old against the young, blacks against Koreans and Hispanics... The poor and middle class, and the rich all blame each other for their economic problems", as Gene Veith wrote. If all cultural groups think differently, then in the post-modernist mindset none of them may make the claim to possessing absolute truth, and can only devolve into mute war or meaningless babble. Critic Tom Strini said, "Bad multiculturalism promotes tribalism, the root of much of the world's meanness."

So here are America's people divided into multiple special interest groups, each claiming the be the victim of injustice and demanding equal rights. Like an offended child, their next move is to turn and point the finger of accusation at whichever group they believe has held them under the thumb of oppression. This is why our postmodernist mentality has developed the belief of collective responsibility. Because our forefathers oppressed the native Americans in times past, present-day white Americans are collectively at fault for their past hurts and must make reparation to their present-day descendants. Were native Americans treated unjustly in the past? Sadly, yes, and many other people groups have been treated with horrifying, undeserved cruelty. But the blame which should fall on individuals in the days of old now descends onto an entire culture several generations removed from those deeds. Affirmative action programs and collective guilt are the result.

Do I think that all affirmative action programs are bad? No, definitely not! For some individuals they have the desired affect of giving them the chance to elevate themselves out of their present condition into a life of opportunity. What I do not agree with is the singling out of certain "minority" groups based specifically on "race" or gender. Why not base financial and educational aid simply on an individual's present-day standing in society? A poor white child in the slums of Los Angeles has just as much need of a boost as a poor black child in the city of Chicago, or a poor Hispanic child, or a poor Vietnamese child. Yes, some sub-culture groups do have more of a social stigma as the result of years of economic hardship or lack of academic or vocational training. But rather than further disengaging these sub-cultures by forcing upon them absolute reliance on affirmative action, why not empower them by equalizing opportunities to all members of society and placing more precedence on the qualities of hard work and educational studies to raise oneself into greater self-sufficiency?

One of the key ways society must change in order to solve reverse racism is by seeking to remove the focus from generic people groups onto the individual. This can help prevent the immediate label of stereotypes (not that there isn't ever any truth in stereotypes) and instead impress the necessity of discovering who the person is as a distinct, unique member of humanity. More importantly, we must see them as an individual created in God's image and in need of a Savior.

It has been proven time and time again by the great men and women in America's history that if one has enough determination to accomplish something, it CAN be done, despite perceived road blocks such as physical disabilities, class status, lack of money, little formal education, disapproval of family, and many other obstacles that would have stopped a less tenacious character. Many times, when you read about these great people, you will find that while they did have many wonderful internal qualities such as diligence, patience, creativity, and perseverance, there were a number of other people in their lives who had a hand in helping them along their way. Often it might be a teacher, who helped them develop as a child or planted the seeds which later grew into great thoughts. Sometimes a parent, a relative, or a mentor provided support for them on their way to greatness. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a single number in the category of those considered to be "great" who did not have at least one person who had influence on them in a special way, a person who was willing to love them and have compassion for them.

Thus, abolishing reverse racism, and racism in general, must ultimately come about through the actions of individuals. Too many people believe that it is the government's responsibility to right all wrongs, equating cheap generosity with compassion in the form of government hand-outs or a Robin Hood mentality of take from the rich to give to the poor. But the solution lies in people, individual people in all walks of life, choosing to view each person they meet not with the eyes of prejudice, but with the shared commonality of humanity which puts us all on even footing with each other, and especially through the eyes of the compassionate Christ. A poor, lonely, downtrodden human being has many needs, but the most important need is a new heart of flesh to replace their heart of stone.

The Church has the example of Jesus as He loved and served the world looking at men's hearts, not their outer person. The second chapter in the book of James speaks against discrimination as the sin of partiality between the rich and the poor. Throughout Scripture runs the theme of justice as one of the attributes of our all-powerful God who "loves righteousness and justice" (Psalm 33:5) and "will bring forth justice to the nations" (Isaiah 42:1). Christians must lead the way in this radical cultural transformation. Only if America regains the fundamentals of the spiritual foundation that were lost when it allowed the smothering of absolute truth and the principles of compassion, love, mercy, and justice will the death knell of racism and reverse racism be heard.

As a final note, here is an excerpt from a final points of a speech by political and social author Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

"If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled on, as in the Modern Era.

... No one on earth has any other way left but- upward."