Racial Tensions

Dennis Prager shares a few thoughts about “racial tensions” in his latest column.

The greatest hope most Americans — including Republicans — had when Barack Obama was elected president was that the election of a black person as the country’s president would reduce, if not come close to eliminating, the racial tensions that have plagued America for generations.

This has not happened. The election, and even the re-election, of a black man as president, in a country that is 87 percent non-black — a first in human history — has had no impact on what are called “racial tensions.”

In case there was any doubt about this, the reactions to the George Zimmerman trial have made it clear. The talk about “open season” on blacks, about blacks like Trayvon Martin being victims of nothing more than racial profiling and about a racist criminal justice system, has permeated black life and the left-wing mainstream media.

I put quotation marks around the term “racial tensions” because the term is a falsehood.

This term is stated as if whites and blacks are equally responsible for these tensions, as if the mistrust is morally and factually equivalent.

But this is not at all the case.

“Racial tensions” is a lie perpetrated by the left. A superb example is when the New York Times described the 1991 black anti-Semitic riots in Crown Heights, Brooklyn as “racial tensions.”

For those who do not recall, or who only read, viewed or listened to mainstream media reports, what happened was that mobs of blacks attacked Jews for three days after a black boy was accidentally hit and killed by a car driven by a Chasidic Jew.

He has some more to say about “racial tensions”, but it is the conclusion of his column that I am interested in.

Once one understands that “racial tensions” is a euphemism for a black animosity toward whites and a left-wing construct, one begins to understand why the election of a black president has had no impact on most blacks or on the left.

Since neither black animosity nor the left’s falsehood of “racial tensions” is based on the actual behavior of the vast majority of white Americans, nothing white America could do will affect either many blacks’ perceptions or the leftist libel.

That is why hopes that the election of black president would reduce “racial tensions” were naive. Though a white person is far more likely to be murdered by a black person than vice versa, all it took was one tragic death of a black kid to reignite the hatred that many blacks and virtually all black leaders have toward white America.

Let’s put this in perspective. Ben Jealous of the NAACP, Al Sharpton of MSNBC, Jesse Jackson, and the left-wing media compete to incite hatred of America generally and white America specifically. Over what? A tragic incident in which a Hispanic man (regularly labeled “white”) said, with all physical evidence to support him, that fearing for his life, he killed a black 17-year-old (regularly labeled “a child”).

The very fact that George Zimmerman — who is as white as Barack Obama — is labeled “white” bears testimony to the left-wing agenda of blaming white America and to the desire of many blacks to vent anger at whites.

And that is why the election of a black president has meant nothing. Indeed, to those whose lives and/or ideologies are predicated on labeling America and its white population as racist, it wouldn’t matter if half the Senate, half the House and half the governors were black.

It is an inconvenient truth, and one that is racist to acknowledge, but it is the Black or African-American population in the contemporary United States that is the most racist, at least in terms of being race conscious and of openly expressing their hatred of other races, especially Whites. It is not uncommon for Black public figures to make hateful statements that if said by a White would make him a pariah very quickly. White, except for unreconstructed racists, tend not to be very race conscious at all. Of course, this is because, in large part, Whites are still the majority and the norm in American society. Still, there is also the fact that Whites have been taught that racism in any form is evil and paying too much attention to race, except in a liberal, politically correct way is dangerously close to racist heresy. So, to the extent that many Whites are race conscious, they often despise their own race.

Justice demands that we treat everyone decently regardless of race and Christ commands His followers to treat everyone as a child of God. With that in mind, I can’t help but think there is something deeply unhealthy about a person railing against people who look like her.

Jared Taylor at American Renaissance has written about this quite often. He seems to believe that the best way to fight Black racial consciousness is to encourage White racial consciousness. This opinion often gets him labeled as a racist, perhaps with some justice. I think he is wrong, though. As I have already stated, Jesus Christ forbids us to be conscious of nationality race, sex or any other distinction except for Christ, as Paul writes,

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. (Col 3:11)

For a more practical reason, if the demographers are correct and whites are going to become a minority in the next century, than the last thing we need is race consciousness of any sort. A nation composed of  about three or four “tribes”, each jealously conscious of its prerogatives can only lead to continuing and uncompromising conflicts and perhaps civil war. A multi-racial race conscious America would most likely resemble the former Yugoslavia then the country we are familiar with.

It would seem, then, that the only way to reduce racial tensions would be to reduce race consciousness for everyone. This would be the sensible thing to do, and perhaps the most just. It is too bad that the liberal media, the Democratic party, and the likes of Al Sharpton and Ben Jealous are not the least bit interested in doing what is sensible or just.



The Emperor Julian 2

I left the story of the Emperor Julian yesterday as he was entering Constantinople to be made Emperor. Today I will write of what Julian did as sole Emperor of the Roman Empire.

Emperor Julian the Apostate

Julian decided that as Emperor, he would help to bring back the old traditions that had made Rome great. The early emperors had pretended that Rome was still a republic and made a great show of consulting the Senate and ruling within the laws. They were not dictators or kings, just the first citizens (princeps) of Rome. Over the centuries, times had changed and the pressures of foreign invasions and civil wars with usurpers had seemed to make it necessary for the Emperor to be an autocrat, ruling by decree. To avert assassinations, the later Emperors encouraged people to believe them to be more than human, the pagan Emperors became gods, the Christians, God’s representatives on Earth. Elaborate ceremonies had developed and Emperors now wore magnificent robes and had golden crowns. They kept courts full of servants and officials. Julian decided that all of this was unnecessary and expensive. He dismissed all of the useless courtiers who were cluttering the palace and tried to live the simple and virtuous life of a philosopher king.



Julian also sought to bring back the old Pagan religion of Greece and Rome. He reorganized the various priesthoods to make them more like the Christian clergy and encouraged acts of charity. He was so enthusiastic a participant in the old rites of sacrifice that his subjects started to refer to him as “the Butcher”. Julian did not persecute the Christians, except to forbid Christians from teaching classical literature on the grounds that they didn’t believe in the old gods. Julian knew that past persecutions had only strengthened the Christians, and in any event by then there were too many Christians for the church to be suppressed. What Julian did instead was to proclaim complete freedom of religion.It should be recalled that part of the reason Constantine had supported the Christians was to give the Roman people something to unify them. It did him and his sons no good if the Christian sects fought among themselves, so he and later Emperors liked to establish one sect as orthodox and others as heretics to be suppressed. Julian hoped that the sects would fight among themselves and so weaken and discredit Christianity.



The Roman Empire still had an unresolved war with the Persians, so Julian decided to prepare for a campaign to the east. The city of Antioch was chosen to be the staging ground for the campaign and Julian traveled there in May 362. He stayed in Antioch for nine months overseeing preparations. It was not a pleasant time for him. Antioch boasted one of the oldest Christian communities in the Empire and by then a majority of the citizens were Christians. They did not like their pagan Emperor, especially after he made the public relations blunder of moving a saint’s remains in order to restore a pagan temple.They also did not know what to make of an Emperor who eschewed ceremony and tried to portray himself as their equal.  He did nothing to repair the damage to his relations with the people and even composed a satire called “the Beard Hater” which savagely mocked the Antiochenes. Everyone was relieved when it was time for Julian and his army to march to war.



Julian was confident and ambitious about the upcoming campaign. This was not to be a mere border war as the Romans and Persians or Parthians had been fighting for centuries. Julian wanted to settle matters with the Persians. Julian believed that if he could be the new Julius Caesar in the west, he could be the new Alexander the Great in the east.



He began the campaign in march 363. At first Julian was as successful against the Persians as he had been against the Germans. He was able to bypass or defeat the Persian forces sent against him and won a major battle at the Persian capital of Ctesiphon. He was unable to capture the city however, and his officers were growing increasingly uneasy over the likelihood of the Roman supply lines being cut off by the Persians. .This was a dangerous possibility because  the withdrawing Persians had waged a scorched earth policy making it difficult for the Romans to live off the land of their enemies and  in order to engage the Persian forces defending Ctesiphon, the Romans had had to cross the Tigris, which now lay between the Roman army and Roman territory. Julian was somewhat reluctant to abandon his conquests but upon receiving news of a large Persian army approaching to relieve Ctesiphon, he agreed to withdraw. The Romans fought another battle with the Persians at Samarra.The battle was indecisive but Julian was mortally wounded. He managed to live for two days and then died of his wounds. His last words were allegedly,”You have won, O Galilean.” If he didn’t actually say this, he might as well have.



Julian's Campaign
Julian’s Campaign

The Roman army, still pursued by the Persians and on the wrong side of the Tigris, quickly selected a Christian named Jovian to be the new Emperor. In order to permit the Romans to return to their territory, Jovian was obliged to make a treaty with the Persians that was very much in their favor. He restored Christianity to a privileged position but he only reigned eight months before dying of natural causes. From Jovian’s time onward, Rome was to be a Christian Empire, and the old pagan religion faded away. By 380, the Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity Rome’s official state religion and ended all support of competing faiths. The Olympic Games were ended and pagan temples were destroyed. The Galilean had won.



I have to wonder if Julian would have been more successful if he had lived longer. I doubt it. He was working against all the trends of his times and against the beliefs of his most prominent subjects.  I do not doubt that Constantine’s conversion to Christianity was sincere, but he was a shrewd enough politician to see that Christianity was the future of the Western world. The Christians were better organized than any competing faith and their religious doctrine was more appealing. Even without Constantine’s support, the Christians were becoming a majority, especially in the Eastern Empire. Julian would have been a better Emperor if he had not tried to spend so much effort in reviving a dead past.





%d bloggers like this: