“Then They Came for You…”

Have you ever noticed that people on the Left love to spout declarations that seem not only absurd, and against common sense, but are actually harming their own self interests? One would not be surprised by people trying to push agendas on others, but I am surprised by those who virtue signal statements that actually go against their own self interests! An example to illustrate this is when in college, a number of white students declared that there were “too many whites” at the college! It’s so common place now to see these white virtue signaling Lefties say things like that and declare they’re guilty of their inherited white privilege and cry for reparations for people of color we no longer bat an eye. However really step back and look at it: If anyone actually calls their bluff and institutes these sentiments in practice, not just virtue signaling theory, it hurts the very people espousing these views! Seems illogical doesn’t it?

But then I realized something else: They DON’T think it affects them personally so they feel safe to say whatever they please! Yep. Those white college kids who cried for less white people at my college won’t be removed at all. They got accepted, paid tuition and won’t get their acceptance rescinded because they’re “too white”. They basically can shout “no more whites!” from the rooftops and have absolutely zero consequences as nothing will actually be done to them. It will be the next incoming class who’s affected if the college takes them seriously. But key point here is it won’t be them 😉 This translates into many the issues the Left virtue signals about too. Women getting defensive and enraged at the idea of safety tips to lessen risk of sexual assault? Another example!

These women who want to shut down discussions of watching how much you drink, not dressing provocatively and acting like you want sexual attention, going alone and such probably haven’t had a close call or been assaulted. All the young women saying “just teach men not to rape” have most likely never been raped. To them, actually being the victim they theorize about isn’t all that real of a possibility. Until it’s too late. After all, what woman would rather put herself in real danger of being assaulted as opposed to spreading safety tips that may sound un-PC and anti-feminist but lessen her risk of an actual assault? They can spout anything they want about how the world should be, then declare they will live as it should be, not as it is because they don’t really see sexual assault as something they’re in danger of. To the Left who virtue signals some issue, it’s merely a theoretical exercise. They don’t see how the real life implications and unintended consequences will affect them if their bluff is called.

Funny thing though is, when an issue did affect the Lefties at my school, they jumped on the other side! Many have said they’d support all gender or transgender bathroom bills allowing biological men to use their bathrooms. However, when it came up in my suite one year at college they all said NO to male guests, many who were well known boyfriends and would never hurt a fly, from using our bathroom and made them go all the way down the hall to a men’s room. Why? Because they felt uncomfortable and even scared by seeing a man in their bathroom! So basically they were perfectly fine with complete male strangers coming into the ladies room at the mall whom they had zero clue what he intended, but were okay with not allowing someone’s boyfriend we all knew well from using a bathroom for 20 seconds to pee under the supervision of his girlfriend (male guests also were to be accompanied at all times so we knew who they were with). Yeah, that makes sense…. Or think on this: Girls who spout messages of “I don’t have to do anything to prevent assault, it’s all on men not to rape!” still watch their drinks like a hawk so they don’t get roofied, or don’t walk alone, or may think twice about how they act despite virtue signaling for their peers. When an issue becomes all that more real and personal, they act very differently from what they will say.

It’s just like that poem about when you don’t speak up for anyone else, and then they came for you and no one’s there to protect you! It’s never real until you’re on the other end of it. However like that poem, it will be you one day. Maybe not today, or tomorrow, or next week. But it’s only a matter of time before:

That girl “theoretically” in danger in the trans-friendly bathroom is your daughter.

The school your children attend with zero protection against intruders is the next tragedy in the news.

The house Antifa decides to stand outside and harass has your own family inside it.

The neighborhood that was always safe now run over by MS-13 becomes yours.

The girl at the party drunk in the mini dress is your best friend.

The flight you decided to take is the one the terrorists decide to hijack because security has become lessened as to not offend the Muslim community.

The global warming activism you take on means you can’t drive a car, or take a flight, or even turn your lights on when you need to.

That boy accused of sexual assault on shaky grounds and moral panic is your son.

The criminal benefiting from “justice reforms” and gets off with a light or no sentence had your purse or broke into your business.

That guy laid off due to poor economic sanctions and struggles to support his family becomes you.

When you have to pay the tab for the welfare state, not just your parents.

The baby whose fate is a “choice” making those little kicks you find so miraculous is in your abdomen.

The park overrun by the unstable homeless leaving drug paraphernalia and feces is now the park your children play in.

When your “white privilege” you sincerely believe in causes you to be denied that job, or promotion, or getting into that school or even makes you pay for the mistakes of another all because of the color of your skin.

And that’s by no means an exhaustive list of examples! Who will stand up for your community, your friends, your family, yourself, when those policies you virtue signal to others become the reality and not just a classroom discussion? Who will be there to stand up for your rights and safety when they come for you

Image result for leftist logic cartoon

Leftist Lunacy 2019!

When you think the Left has gone completely down the rabbit hole, the next big thing will prove you they’re not even close to peak lunacy! Consistently beating their own record and becoming their own satirical caricature, here’s a roundup of some of their wackiest moments in 2019:

Covington Craziness

What does it take to get the Left on the warpath? Apparently nothing more than a teenage boy and some friends standing peacefully as a grown Native American man chants “vocables”, (that is not even authentic Native American words) and bangs a drum inches from his face! For the heinous act of doing an uncomfortable smile, Nicholas Sandmann and his friends received threats of violence, doxxing and of course, being branded as racists!

Image result for covington cartoon

Hate Crime Hoax of The Year

Jussie Smollett’s nose must be super long by now 😉 He alleged late last January that white men put a noose around his neck, doused him in bleach and gave racial and homophobic slurs. Turns out the truth was the men were in on it with Smollett and guess what? Were black as well! The charges for making a false report to the police and the countless time and money wasted in the investigation: Community service and all charges were dropped! Imagine if this were a conservative! The Liberal media of course believed this wild story until the facts started to emerge. When the truth was finally outed, the Left had no choice but to back track, but of course still asserted hate crimes are on the rise despite an actual decrease in number!

Image result for jussie smollett hate crime hoax cartoon

Gillette Goes “Woke”

Like many businesses, Gillette has gone “woke” in an attempt to appeal to the vocal minority. Accordingly, their commercial bashing traditional manhood and masculinity for a company for men didn’t go over as big with their intended demographic! The commercial has a Leftist message containing ideas such as boys play wrestling is cruelty, men grilling burgers are complicit in toxic manhood, “boys will be boys” is a rape apology versus a harmless acknowledgement of a boy’s natural rambunctious nature and telling a girl to smile is akin to sexual assault among others. In addition, it implied that old white men were in the dark, and all the woke “heroes” were young minority men. No wonder people are fed up with their products preaching to them…

Image result for gillette ben garrison

Much Ado About Nothing

The Muller Report, 3 years in the making and countless taxpayer dollars wasted, has come to the conclusion this year that there was NO collusion with Russia! Well, that was totally worth 3 years of time and effort and tax payer money to find out…. *Sarcasm* Of course, the Left still is grasping at straws to accuse Trump of something.

Image result for ben garrison mueller report

Pro-Life, Pro Choice, and Then There’s Pro-Meltdown

Pro life vs. pro choice is a very heated issue! However the Left went a step further by making a complex controversy a good vs. “evil woman hating misogynist” one… Demonizing the pro-life movement, and anyone who may be moderate but dares disagree with the “my body my choice” moral free-for-all and making a straw man out of their arguments for life isn’t new. But their vitriolic and insane reaction to states that stood up for the pro-life side and values beyond mere convenience show their true colors. Sad that in 2019 the choice to end a life was more empowering than the choice to keep it…. And then there’s this:

Image result for miley cyrus abortion cake

Literal Concentration Camps At The Border

As if the Left hasn’t gone totally off the deep end, they decided that the detention centers at the border are akin to concentration camps. As in the ones like Auschwitz and Dachau! Where 11 million people died in WWII. Geesh, who knew not having open borders and making sure kids weren’t being exploited by gangs and human traffickers to get into the country was the same as the genocide and mass persecution of 11 million? Not to mention the pics shown are mainly from the Obama years…

Image result for border concentration camps conservative cartoon

“How DARE You!!!”

Greta Thunberg has been the new kid on the block for the Left’s radical climate agenda. While there’s nothing wrong with being more cognizant of our environment and our planet, the idea the world will end in 12 years or there will be “no future” or “no childhood” for the children of the future is absurd. Never the less, she was named Person of The Year for Times Magazine for her radical take on climate change, brainwashing countless youth into believing they have no future because of the “pale and stale” who irreversibly ruined the planet…

Related image

O, (No!) Canada…

Canadian Prime minister Justin Trudeau had pictures of himself in blackface or brown face exposed and yet he’s still in office without much for consequences! Compare that to the outrage at anything resembling blackface but actually wasn’t at a Halloween party, or a mud facial spa, or conservatives caught in blackface from 40 years ago when it wasn’t a PC no-no or the age of internet permanence! Imagine if pictures of Trump surfaced of him like that! He’s be out within the week! Really shows the Left’s utter hypocrisy and double standards!

Image result for trudeau blackface conservative cartoon

He Was An “Austere Religious Scholar”

The ISIS terrorist leader Al Baghdadi was killed by US forces this year and guess what the Liberal headline was by the Washington Post: “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.” Yep. He wasn’t a bloodthirsty terrorist at the helm of ISIS, an infamous terrorist group, but a religious scholar! Luckily many saw this as lunacy and created the funny hashtag #WaPoDeathNotices. My favorite was “John Wilkes Booth, Noted Thespian Dies at 26”!!! 😉

Image result for austere religious scholar cartoon

Ok, Boomer

This phrase has gained traction with Leftist millennials and Gen Z to dismiss the Boomer generation and turn their name into a slur. For the party of “tolerance” they are all too keen to show their hypocrisy in the blatant ageism in this new hip phrase. Whenever anyone says something they don’t like, it’s “Ok boomer!” as a proverbial hand in the face don’t talk to me attitude. And if someone calls them out for their disrespectful and rude behavior, they’re told to shut up and take it because they ruined the economy, the Earth and everything else!

Related image

A Good Guy With A…. (CENSORED)

Recently two good guys with guns saved a church full of people in White Settlement, TX from a gunman before he could hurt innocent people. Tragically 2 died at the hands of the gunman but think of how many more would have had they been defenseless. While many are thankful countless people can go home safe to their families once more, the Left now decided to bash the NRA and cry racist because of the town’s name (which was named historically by the Comanches at the time who lived in Texas)! Notice too this story was barely covered on Liberal news stations. I bet we can guess why! Around the same time, a Hanukkah celebration turned into tragedy with stabbings yet it’s blamed on “Trump’s America” and no mention of the suspect who is not the stereotype the Left envisioned him to be….

Image result for good guy with gun conservative cartoon

Last But Not Least: Trump’s Impeachment Proceedings!

Of course 2019 couldn’t have wrapped up loonier than with the Left’s feeble attempts to impeach Trump! With the few articles of impeachment the Leftist House voted on minus two, they have yet to give it to the Senate to make it official! Now, they’re grasping at more straws to bring forth more articles, never mind the current ones being stalled on. The Left can say they “impeached” Trump all they want, but until it’s given to the Senate for a fair trial, and until Trump is actually kicked out of the White house, he’s STILL your president 😉

Image result for impeachment cartoon conservative

Here’s to an even loonier 2020!

Image result for party's over cartoon ben garrison

What events do you think deserve a mention? Comment below! 😉

I See You, but Do You See Me?: A Critique of the Left’s “Representation”

The issue which the Left calls “representation” has become a wider social phenomenon. It’s basic essence is to “represent” different groups, often racial minorities, but other groups sometimes as well such as women, different body types, disabilities, conditions, etc… in things such as movies and TV, literature, advertising, etc… to show a positive portrayal of those groups and that they are seen and matter in society. An often cited reason for its importance in addition to those, is to send a message to the next generation that people who look like them matter and can be role models and achieve everything anyone else can. They cite the importance of being able to “see yourself” in popular culture, ads, and such as if you don’t you feel marginalized or ostracized from society.

This may surprise many on the Left, but I’m not necessarily against this idea. Granted due to much that is utter lunacy coming from the Left’s collective hive mind, I look anything they say is good now with a huge grain of salt, however I thought about the idea of representation and thought that its core premise was a good one. I too have felt the relief, or the sense of belonging from “seeing myself” with other people. I honestly think that’s an innate human desire, to want to be around others that look like you, as a sense of belonging. Letting others also feel a sense of belonging in society is a good thing overall. Also, it is good for others to see you as a multidimensional person, and not just a stereotype or comedic foil, or some bad guy. Simply letting others see you as human, just like them.

However, this idea is not without criticism from me too. I agree with its most basic premise, but there are some messages mixed in with the positive messages that take away from representation’s ultimate goal. The first is regarding motives for having a more “diverse” character, or advertisement for instance. If a story can be told with characters where race is irrelevant, thus anyone can be any race and still make sense, then a multi-racial cast isn’t an issue for me. Same for advertising targeted at everyone. The issue starts where one race is deliberately substituted for another to push some agenda, such as a superficial diversity quota, or in essence, the “token minority” which to me in itself is insulting and belittling. For example, some stories traditionally from European culture who naturally would feature white characters were substituted with other races in which they historically were not present in the society at the time the story was written and the story clearly described the character as European.

“Re-writing” such a story with a different racial character then is not representation, but erasure of the original group’s ethnicity or race in their story about their people. To grasp the absurdity, imagine a traditional African folk story, or a Native American one, only all the characters re-cast as white people! Would you cast white people nowadays to play what originally was a role for a minority character? If not anymore, then why recast a white character as a minority, for example, when remaking another author’s work who originally created the physical description of the characters in their story? As “white washing” is a common accusation for movies and TV by the Left, erasing traditionally white characters recast as a minority does the same thing, only in reverse. Yes, sometimes people take creative licence to “cleverly” remake a story to have a new angle, but it’s really not so “creative” if your only motivation is to be more “woke”!

Same for gender. If you wouldn’t make an originally female character male, then don’t erase a male character in the name of feminism! And speaking as a woman, it insults women who can achieve great things in real life regardless of their gender, when you feel the need to artificially create women characters to achieve things for a superficial “token high-achieving woman” just to push a feminist narrative rather than have a strong female character emphasize her persistence, intelligence and work ethic as a human, and not just because she’s a woman. Also like many other edicts by the Left, it only seems to go one way: White people and men are frequently erased out of the mainstream media and such for minorities and women. What messages does that send to those groups about their value in society? True equality will be when things like race or gender are seen as irrelevant to a person’s ultimate success and potential. Representing everyone means everyone, not just your special interest groups.

My other major critique of representation by the Left is how strongly focused it is on physical appearance or physical aspects of oneself. I think that also sends a harmful message in that it implicitly says that what really matters in belonging is what you look like, rather than the values you have or what sort of person you are on the inside. You are not limited to only looking up to people who happen to look like you do. Isn’t that what “diversity” was supposed to be about? About relating to and gaining positive takeaways from others who are different than yourself? The idea a person of color can only truly gain inspiration from someone the same race as themselves, or girls only being able to be inspired by women is just as absurd as white people only being able to see white people as a role model or boys only seeing men as a role model for their future aspirations even if women have achieved what they want to in their futures as well. Some of the most influential people in my life and from history don’t look like me in terms of race or gender. What I truly care about is their ideas, their brilliance, and their success.

Which leads me to this point: What about ideological representation? Especially for groups the Left overlooks or doesn’t seem to want to represent. I know the importance of being “seen” by society and the sense of belonging in seeing people like myself firsthand. But for me that more importantly includes people who not merely look like me but think like me. Ideologically, the Left dominates the mainstream media and literature. Conservatives are often reduced to a stereotype of an ignorant hick, or an outdated bigot, or used for a comedic foil in contrast to more “woke” characters. Shows like the Rosanne reboot tried to make a more well rounded portrayal of  conservatives as human and multidimensional. We need more like that who portray conservatives as fully human, with real and complex motivations behind their opinions even so if you still disagree, you can understand why they may feel as they do, rather than imply it’s “because they’re bigots!”. After all, what messages does the next generation absorb when they see people who think like their parents, friends or relatives mocked and derided for their beliefs? What do you think they’ll think if they dare explore those ideas which are mocked, satirized, and demonized for themselves? Why not a positive multidimensional portrayal of a conservative? A devout Christian family? A pro-life character? What about representation for conservative women? Conservatives of color as well? Conservatives are not just one gender or phenotype either! This doesn’t mean you can’t have any liberal characters, or criticize conservative ideas, it just means giving the other side fair and equal representation too free of the stereotypes and mockery you wouldn’t like to see people who think like you subjected to.

Ideological representation also is especially significant in representation within academia, where the usual focus has been on physical appearance or gender. There’s a need for academics, scientists, researchers, scholars etc… of color or women, says the Left, even to the point of deliberately excluding white male academics from the table such as at conferences, or whose research gets to be displayed or whose ideas get to be featured as a growth in the discipline. However, needless to say that too discredits the actual achievements of women scholars or scholars of color by focusing on their phenotype as the main important focus rather than the merits of their ideas in of themselves, we need ideological representation within academia as well, not just physical! What about works by conservative leaning authors being featured? Or more conservative professors in higher education, or letting conservative students have a voice in class? What about featuring research whose implications support conservative ideas ? Research in of itself should be politically neutral and impartially carried out, but the implications for many findings are used quite often to influence policies with ideological and political impacts, and we need more than just one side’s perspective on how we use those conclusions.

Representation is good in its basic premise, but carried out in a way that has many major flaws sending mixed messages. Physical characteristics are not the most important thing in deciding if you belong, or who you can look up to. Nor is the idea that you can only truly relate to those who look just like you. More significantly, it like many other things the Left likes to do, is a one way street. Represent who we want, but not anyone else. The erasure of positive portrayals of conservatives, white people from their own narratives, men being substituted for women for no other reason other than to be “woke” for examples. This hypocrisy and double standards ultimately erodes the vast majority of the positive messages representation entails. Representation overall can be a very positive force, but when it’s done for the right reasons, not just some superficial agenda to push, and when it’s done for EVERYONE, not just who you pick and choose deserves to be represented in society.

Image result for ideological diversity conservative cartoon"

 

Several Reasons Why We “Resist” Political Correctness

Many on the Left are still puzzled as to why conservatives like myself and many others are so resistant to their new PC “innovations”. After all to them, being politically correct is simply common courtesy, or not being offensive or disrespectful. Why would people not care if they hurt others’ feelings or are callous and indifferent to people’s struggles? Are conservatives just a bunch of big bullies? Of course that isn’t true, and countless conservatives are just as kind and considerate as the rest of humanity! So why then, aren’t we just going along with every declaration the Left throws at us in terms of what’s socially acceptable?

Among several answers that come to mind, a major explanation is an inherent criticism into political correctness in itself as a “moral” thing to do. Political correctness asks us to be considerate of other’s feelings, and be conscientious of how our words and actions affect others. However, this lofty moral aim only applies to select groups which the Left chooses, and not everyone. Is it really just me, or does anyone else with some observational skills notice how it’s a-okay to mock, belittle, demonize and deride men, white people, and old people, especially if all three are combined into being an old white male in ways completely unacceptable to do so if the genders and races were reversed? Why is it acceptable to say there are too many white people or too many men, yet not for minorities or women? Why does no one bat an eye when people openly declare they feel threatened by white people yet a white person saying such a thing about a racial minority is a racist bigot? Why are men told to shut up about issues affecting women yet women face no such restrictions on issues pertaining to men? This hypocritical double standard of reverse discrimination chips away at any moral high ground political correctness presents itself as and many see it as dishonest and lacking integrity. 

Another reason also relates to practicality and safety. Many politically correct edicts are simply dangerous, to put it bluntly. The idea that cis-gendered male predators who will prey on women won’t take advantage of now transgender laws allowing trans women in bathrooms or locker rooms for women won’t happen is absurd. I’m not saying that genuine trans women committed to living as women are the threat, but regular men can pretend to identify as a woman merely to gain access to women and no one is allowed to question their true motives. Not acknowledging the risks to women and children in these spaces puts countless people at risk for being leered at and harassed, not to mention sexual predation and molestation! Another major example is how we treat rape prevention advice to women.

Any attempt at safety tips for women is construed as victim blaming, despite the fact the same tips generalized for other non-sexual crimes is something no one equates with victim blaming nor bats an eye about. The idea we can teach young women to brazenly and carelessly get completely wasted, walk alone in sketchy areas, wear revealing clothing and not be sending the wrong message if they don’t want sexual attention and live in the world as it should be rather than as it really is, no matter how unfair or unjust puts them at immense risk for victimization. Of course we shouldn’t live in a world of predatory men hurting women any chance they get, nor does a woman ever “deserve” to be assaulted, but the reality of the situation is there will always be rapists no matter how much “education” you give the male population, just as we teach our kids not to steal, and yet there are still thieves. “Just don’t rape” isn’t the one all encompassing answer to preventing women from becoming victims, and the idea that it’s now socially unacceptable to acknowlege that truth is a direct assault on women’s safety.

An additional reason relates to matters of identity and culture. I’ve heard it argued before by the Left that if something is fairly inconsequential to you, that is you personally have nothing to lose in changing something you do or say, and it matters a great deal more to someone else if you do, then why not just do it? For example, if changing a term you use is of no tangible consequence to you, but means the world to someone else for you to change, why not just do it rather than make a mountain out of a molehill? On it’s face that sounded fairly reasonable. It seems like, okay? Why not? Got to pick your battles sometimes…

The issue in this type of politically correct issue is based in more abstract ideas, so I’ll give a concrete example of a case. One such case was over the renaming of a place in Arizona called “Squaw Peak” to another name because some consider “squaw” to be offensive, thus politically incorrect. There was major push back against this however by the locals of the area, a they have always known it by its original name. Other similar examples involving re-naming include changing namesakes for colleges, buildings, streets etc… from historical figures now deemed “un-PC” for their historical views. Or going beyond places, what about those sports teams the Left decided needed a re-do? On its face, these name changes seem inconsequential. Admit it: What tangible harm will that do to you personally? Unlike many of the safety issues or moral hypocrisy targeting you personally, changing the name of something unrelated to your direct life is not the same as targeting you. Having the sign read “Piestewa Peak” instead of “Squaw Peak” is not the end of life as you know it. Thing is, maybe there are some more significant implications…

It’s really not so much that isolated incident in of itself, is it? It’s really about a much bigger idea: Changing the name changes some of the essence of that place, what its significance is, and part of that community’s identity. Places are meaningful. Imagine the name of your town were changed. Or this entire country for example! Does it matter to you if we change the name of your favorite spots, or places that signify a part of your community’s identity? What about your favorite sports team? Would you root for it under another name? Even if you did, would it feel exactly the same? If you’re honest with yourself, probably not. Changing the name of something significant to your life or your community changes the essence, the identity of that place or thing figuratively as well as literally, which in essence, changes the culture. Even speech is a huge example. The way we talk is a direct reflection of our culture, and in that light, changing one term to another speaks volumes. For many, a seemingly insignificant change implicitly sends the message, you need to change who you are as our culture is superior to yours… 

The last but certainly not the last example I want to bring up as to why conservatives are very critical and resist political correctness is obvious, but not as thought of: We’re simply tired of never being able to please you no matter what we do. Yep. Even if an issue truly is inconsequential in the truest sense of the word for us, maybe we’re just tired of being in a society constantly telling us everything we do is offending someone, and no matter what we may do to fix it, there’s always the next thing, and the next, and the next etc… We address one issue, it’s onto the next, or even if we come up with some solution, it in itself is considered offensive! For instance, people of color complain white people don’t give them a voice on racial matters. Then when white people ask them about a racial issue they are often met with the angry retort “I’m not the spokesperson for all people of color! I’m tired of everyone asking me this stuff…” But, wait a second! Isn’t the reason a white person asked you about your perspective on the issue because you’re a person of color, thus better suited to give an answer on racial issues as opposed to the white person just assuming what you might think??? In essence, you’re given a voice on an issue relating to your race, then get offended because someone asked you because of your race… This just highlights the catch 22 of the Left’s edicts, as well as that many are just plain ridiculous! Banning saying “holding down the fort” because it might be vaguely offensive to Indians is absurd, when there’s no definitive evidence it’s referring to Native Americans for just one example. You know, maybe if it were like one to two major issues that were declared solved and case closed once something was done, many conservatives would have been more willing to oblige the PC ideas. It’s when it’s complaint after complaint after complaint our ears get numb to it and our patience drains away completely.

Overall, an environment where breathing is probably offensive in some way, not being un-PC is an impossible challenge to anyone who has common sense, reason, and a sense of fairness! What’s not to “resist” about it? To leave you with one final thought: Is political correctness really about doing what the Left sincerely thinks is the right thing to do, or is it just yet another tool to push their agendas? 

Image result for political correctness weeds branco"

The Left’s Annual Thanksgiving Guilt Trip: A Guest Post by Time Foolery

Every year for awhile now, instead of thoughts of delicious food and giving thanks for our blessings, Thanksgiving brings up the usual standard SJW arguments about the persecution of First Nations tribes and before you know it, your happy annual dinner has devolved into a verbal fight, and worse, possibly a food fight!

It’s understandable for those who aren’t fully educated in the history of Thanksgiving to completely misunderstand the holiday and what it commemorates. They’ve been taught that the landing of the Pilgrims on Plymouth Rock was the beginning of 400 years of native oppression. But with a bit of education about the holiday and what it actually stands for, it suddenly becomes clear what they’re sorely missing.

I have the good fortune of being a direct descendant of Governor William Bradford, the first Guest of Honor at the first Thanksgiving, so the history of the Pilgrims is also my family history. My 11th great grandfather was the man who led the Pilgrims from England in search of a land where they would be free to practice their Puritan religion, which was frowned upon in England. Plus, they sought a place where they could live free of the decadent influences of their homeland. After trying out life in Amsterdam first, a lack of money led to the Pilgrims taking an offer of free transport and funding if they’d come to the New World and begin taming the wild land that would become the United States of America.

Unused to roughing it and trying to scrabble a living from virgin land, and supply missions from England being subject to delays, they found a friend in the Wampanoag Indians, who taught them what crops they could grow in the New England soil and helped them to hunt for food. In recognition of the great cooperation that had begun between the two cultures, they held a great feast of Thanksgiving for all the blessings they’d found, including their new allies. They even struck a treaty to protect each other against other raiding tribes!

So, how did a holiday built upon the cooperation of two cultures become the symbol of genocide? Especially after the colonies relied on some native tribes for their assistance in the Revolutionary War, and even more so after settlers began intermarrying with Indians! For all intents and purposes, the two cultures seemed destined to continue this great relationship.

For that answer, we need to fast forward a few centuries till we get to the first ostensibly Democrat president named Andrew Jackson. He and his party, the Democrat-Republicans (which became just Democrats after the Civil War), created the Indian Removal Act of 1830 that began forcing Native Tribes off their ancestral lands and onto reservations. This was done in an effort to give the government more land they could sell to settlers, and there was nothing they wouldn’t do to make a buck, including doing such dirty, underhanded tricks as giving tribes blankets that carried the smallpox virus. So not only did the Democrat Party start the genocide against First Nations peoples, but they did it for MONEY.

In light of the actual history of America’s treatment of Native Tribes, it is clear that the people who established the holiday of Thanksgiving had no responsibility for the choices our government made two centuries AFTER the inaugurating event. The first Thanksgiving was exactly what it was called, a day of giving thanks for your blessings, which the Pilgrims considered the Wampanoag to be one of their greatest gifts from God and thus honoured them by having them be full participants in the day. It was an event that never would’ve happened that first year without their help.

Thanksgiving was established as a national holiday by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 following the pivotal, and very bloody, Battle of Gettysburg. He wanted to give America a day in which they could join with their families and give thanks to Providence for all their blessings. It was an chance for the country to heal following the end of the war, not to mention the former slaves who had been freed from bondage. Ultimately, Thanksgiving was created as an equal opportunity holiday that was built upon the idea of different peoples coming together to create this great country. It was intended to not just bring families together, but to bring the entire country together after so much strife.

It is easy to blame the past for not being more “woke”, and to load up all national events with sinister intentions based on the cumulative outcome of another generation’s actions, but the new relationship that had begun between the two cultures that gathered to give thanks that original day in 1631 had nothing to do with what happened later on. Anyone who assigns such evil portents on a day when we, too, might show our appreciation to Providence for all we have received, is merely looking to destroy the most positive of holidays that actually highlights the spirit of cooperation between two 17th Century cultures, not the eventual result of 19th Century Democrat expansion.


Excellent points Time Foolery! I’ve mentioned time and time again how it’s not really about getting some form of restorative justice, but merely push an agenda using cherry picked history as an excuse. They do that with Columbus Day too, despite Columbus never having any direct contact with any Native Americans in the present day US! Then again, the Left is often the epitome of ingratitude when it comes to appreciating America and its values…

Image result for thanksgiving conservative cartoon

(I’m 99.9% sure this is what went down 😉 )

Don’t be a Prisoner of Your Past

I’m sure everyone has heard this one! We all have things that happened to us in the course of our lives that were negative, unpleasant, sad, even deeply traumatic for some. However, the saying goes, don’t let your past define you. The legacy you inherited doesn’t have to be your children’s legacy. How the schoolyard bully treated you does not have to define the rest of your life. You don’t automatically have to be a drunk because that’s what mom or dad was. Or never find love because your parents couldn’t with each other. If you’ve been through some tragedy or trauma, you can get help to move on with life and not allow whatever happened to define who you are today.

For some people however, this “past” goes beyond what they’ve been through as individuals, but also includes what was done to your racial or ethnic group or even gender for example. I think we can all admit this country has some moments we aren’t so proud of. Slavery, conquest, racism, sexism, discrimination, exclusion, ostracism, etc. of certain groups historically. However despite the many social strides towards equality this country also has made to atone for and help eradicate the past hatred, prejudice and discrimination, some still argue that members of these historically oppressed groups have literally inherited the past trauma of their ancestors despite they themselves not having the same negative experiences as the previous generations. They call this “trans-generational trauma”, arguing the legacy left behind by historical oppression has somehow traumatized today’s generations.

Now here’s the thing: I understand about epigenetics and wondered if they are arguing that somehow a gene could have been turned off or on altering the next generation’s genetic makeup somehow due to the previous generation’s direct experience of trauma, but apparently that wasn’t necessarily the case that trans-generational trauma is biologically inherited. I also wondered if they thought a factor like the parent’s or grandparent’s experiences would reasonably influence what they told or how they raised the next generation who hadn’t been there as it is plausible. You will be affected to some degree by what a parent or other family member tells you growing up about what they went through or in how they raise you. That isn’t the whole of this “trans-generational trauma” thing either though! Apparently, the main factor cited was the younger generations are “traumatized” by guess what? Society!

Yep. The argument is the history of oppression by society in the past and alleged oppression today “traumatizes” people of historically oppressed groups. To give an example, one supporting the trans-generational trauma theory could argue that members of the black community are “traumatized” by slavery in the US that was abolished over a century ago, or that more recently, a millennial generation black person is somehow personally traumatized by the lynchings their great grandparents witnessed in the Jim Crow era despite never having any personal experience with lynchings other than in 2nd period US History! Now, I can agree that knowing your people were treated so heinously in the past would be very unsettling and disturbing. However to claim you have the same or comparable trauma as your great grandparent who was actually there? Is that reasonable?

Another example would be Native Americans. The US historically had many unfair policies and practices such as assimilation at boarding schools that wiped much of their own languages and cultures out. The reservation system was very corrupt. Sadly, many Native Americans today have many issues such as alcoholism, poverty, child abuse etc… May do claim trans-generational trauma. They say all their issues hearken back to historical policies that now have been overturned, such as boarding schools for them, or forcing them onto reservations although many choose to live on them now. They claim their history of oppression has led to their current poverty, alcoholism, health problems, etc… and left them traumatized. Only thing is, the younger generations have not personally been forced into boarding schools, have not been at historical events like Wounded Knee, have not been forced onto reservations preventing them from hunting the buffalo for example. No. They like most of America’s youth mourn the loss of their phone privileges more than the fact they as a people can no longer live a nomadic lifestyle on the plains! (Yes, before you cry “not all Indians were…” I know I’m talking mostly about the Plains Indians specifically  for the sake of brevity!).

Another point: Why is the past a valid reason to excuse poor behavior in the present? A community wants to improve and break the cycle, yet does nothing themselves because it feels historical oppression cursed them to a life of misery! To me, it’s like saying “I’m a drunk because my parents were drunks” as an excuse not to get treatment for your own addiction! “The white man oppressed me so I’m destined to act this way…” is the logic behind this.

Why can’t the past be in the past? Of course the past shapes our future, but it doesn’t define it! We can’t change what happened to us, but we can shape our future to be different learning from our past. We can choose to break the cycle. Choose to leave another legacy than oppression, poverty and victimhood to pass on to the next generation of our community. Your parent’s divorce doesn’t mean your marriage will end in divorce. You have no excuse to abuse another because you were abused. Most an agree with those statements. So why is it hard to make the leap to say your ancestors’ oppression is no excuse to not move forward as a community and make a clean slate for your children free from the baggage you may have carried in your past?

Honestly, I find it incredibly insulting and dishonoring to the struggles your ancestors had to claim that you too are traumatized by those events! Why? You were not there! My great-grandfather fled Armenia due to genocide by the Ottoman Empire. My Dad was his grandson, however he does not and has no right whatsoever to claim he was also a victim of the genocide his grandfather endured! My grandmother was relentlessly ostracized for being Armenian in her all Irish neighborhood yet I am not the one who has been traumatized and forever changed because of it because it was HER experience, NOT mine! Step back for a moment and think, isn’t it utterly belittling and disrespectful to those who have actually endured the worst history had to offer and claim it as your trauma? Your burden? To have the audacity to say it changed you? 

You are not the one who was a slave.

You are not the one in an internment camp.

You are not the one who was segregated all your life.

You are not the one killed at Wounded Knee or forced in a boarding school.

You are not the one who was forced to see your family killed in a genocide.

You are not the one who was denied their humanity in the worst ways.

Overall I find it incredibly insulting and disrespectful anyone dares to capitalize off their ancestors’ suffering to claim oppression for themselves. Frankly it’s sad anyone also would see themselves as a victim with only a legacy of oppression and victimhood to pass on to their children. No, contemporary society is not a utopia and prejudice still exists, but being focused in the present is a whole other story than being stuck in the past. Why not make the legacy you pass on to the next generation after you one of resilience, perseverance, independence and determination instead of perpetual victimhood and trauma from past wrongs done generations before their time? What child wants to sit on your lap and listen to how society hated them and always will and be taught certain people hate them? Leave a legacy of “victor-hood”, not victimhood!

Lastly, what sort of trauma might a generation of white people have over being the historical “oppressor” and “bad guy” when countless white people want to genuinely make change and leave their own legacy of love and acceptance rather than their ancestors’ alleged legacy of oppression and subjugation? Must they be defined by the sins of their forefathers? What about the historical oppression against other groups? Why don’t Italians, Germans, Irish etc… have this so called “Trans-generational trauma” from their history? After all, this isn’t about current trauma, but your ancestor’s trauma.

Image result for candace owens quote

Another Angle in The Appropriation Debate: Imagination and The Empathy That Comes With It

Halloween may be over, but the issue persists year round. The Left and cultural appropriation debates pop up especially around costumes which in one era were once innocuous fun, but now deemed as socially inappropriate, even dehumanizing! The main argument is that dressing as a culture not your own, especially if you’re white, stigmatizes and dehumanizes a culture as a caricature. Also, the argument one can simply take off a costume whereas the culture lives with the stigma and cannot simply stop being what they are is unfair to minorities.

I disagree with this stance in the majority of circumstances however I will say if a costume is deliberately meant to be insulting and degrading, mocking the culture on purpose then it is inappropriate. If you’re mostly doing it to be a jerk, then yeah, not cool… Thing is, the majority of circumstances are more complex or simply not at all about denigrating anyone even remotely! Most may not go so far as to “honor” a culture out of some deep personal respect, although some may be, but the majority simply wants to dress up as something they’re not; like every other trick or treater. After all, why dress up as something you are already every other day of the year? Some may feel highlighting a difference in one culture from another may not come off as flattering, but the fact is, another culture is different from your own or else it wouldn’t be considered a separate thing! And why is being different or “exotic” necessarily a negative thing in a society that wants to emphasize “diversity”? Why does wanting to feel like or be someone different than yourself for a bit a bad thing necessarily?

The perspective I want to being to the debate sounds corny, but I think is significant: Imagination. What child doesn’t want to imagine they are something different than what they are in real life? Reads a story about pirates and wants to imagine what it would be like abroad a pirate ship as part of the crew. Reads a fairy tale and wonders what life as a princess would be like. What it’s like to wear a gown to the ball, or reads about some far away land and wants to imagine being there too. To taste their cool foods, hear their music, wear what they do, if only for a daydream. Why is it not just as innocent for a child to dress up and pretend to be an Indian as it is a pirate? One can argue Indians were historically treated as inferior whereas pirates don’t have that history in the US. But how does that change the fact the kid simply wants to imagine being someone else, devoid of a desire to subjugate and denigrate those the child imitates momentarily?

As a child, I was very into different historical periods and various cultures. When I studied ancient Rome I wanted to know what it felt like to be a Roman and wear a toga, or a stola just to have that experience. When I was into the middle ages I dressed up as a medieval person for Halloween. When I liked the ancient near east, I dressed up as a Mesopotamian, when I liked bog bodies from ancient Europe I dressed as one too another year. Heck, I dressed as a dinosaur or caveman when I liked them as well! Notice a pattern? It had zero to do with race or singling out anyone beyond my own interest in that culture regardless of phenotype of geographic location. There was no distinction between the now un PC costume choices and the socially okay ones in motivations to choose them. I believe the same for most children who aren’t raised obsessed with political correctness.

I feel sad for a generation of kids who will never get that experience. One of being whatever they imagine themselves to be. Many adults can attest to the magical times they had pretending to be something they weren’t. However in a society that forbids one from being anything but what they were born as in terms of other people, they will never get to imagine what it’s like to be from a different place or imagine themselves as someone very different from themselves. I argue that we try to teach out kids inter-cultural empathy yet how can they truly empathize without putting themselves in the shoes of the other, and thinking what would it be like if I were them? It’s too abstract for young children to abstractly ponder the implications of the Indian Removal Act on Native Americans in a dry classroom lecture without an emotional experience of imagining being an Indian, and children can express that through pretend play. In elementary school our class pretended to be slaves being sold on slave ships then escaping slavery although none of us were black. Were we doing something wrong “appropriating” that pretend experience? After all, we could stop being slaves after the lesson was over. Or did it help us personally empathize with those who went through slavery?

Is it really some gross oppression that you have to be something I dressed up as past October 31st and I don’t? That’s the grounds for the ban on cultural costumes? What about contexts where one dresses up as a specific person in a different culture or race but it’s because YOU ADMIRE THEM AS A ROLE MODEL? Is that racist??? For example, what about a white child dressing up as MLK because he’s their personal hero? What about a kid dressing up innocuously as a fictional cartoon character of a different race or ethnicity? How far does it have to go? An Aztec or native print is now a sin, or a poncho? What about European stereotypes like an Italian with pasta or Lederhosen on non-Italians and non-Germans? Why can’t people imagine and pretend to experience positive things of a culture and have that motivate them to care on a more personal level for the real members? Is that impossible? Even more simply, why can’t someone choose a costume for Halloween without having to feel like they’re a bad person for wanting to use their imagination?

Image result for cultural appropriation costumes meme

This wouldn’t surprise me if it were real! I weep for the next generation….