So New York’s Museum of Natural History is contemplating—which means executing—the removal of Teddy Roosevelt’s famous statue. And why not? He’s been declared a racist and colonialist, even though he was most assuredly not a racist and actually fought against European colonial powers in this hemisphere.
The problem is that for many people Roosevelt is a racist not because he simply must be. This isn’t a question of whether they know their history—the Czar is pretty sure the MNH knows who Roosevelt was and what he actually believed—but a question of his white privilege.
For most Americans, this makes no sense. But for enough Americans, it’s totally the truth. And yes, a lot of the people arguing for it indeed know Teddy was not at all the racist his more famous cousin Franklin demonstrably was. See, Teddy represents racist colonialism; yeah, they’ll be coming for FDR’s statues sooner than anyone thinks.
Here’s what’s driving the issue: there are two popular definitions of “racism.”
Most Americans believe the dictionary’s definition that racism is the belief that races can be inherently superior or inferior to each other. You know, when you put it that way, it all sounds a bit silly. What American can seriously argue, in the 21st Century, that a person is magically better or worse than another simply by being born a particular skin tone, or having epicanthic eyes, or an inherited demographic trait?
In fact, there are extremely few people who believe this; in fact, if someone were to do a proper study, one might well discover that more Americans believe in Bigfoot than actually believe in some inherent, magical properties that make one group of people somehow superior to another. And notice we don’t indicate which race is superior—that doesn’t matter for the definition; anyone who thinks this way is a racist, no matter which race he or she is.
But a large-enough number of Americans believe in a very different definition based not on genetics but on economics. In this definition, racism is the result of one race instituting an economic system over other races. And because the white race happens to have been that race, here in America, the white economic system is racist.
And because economies drive government systems, then all government systems in America are racist. The founding fathers were largely racist white guys; so everything that derives from them inherits that racism.
And if this sounds a bit silly, here’s a different way of putting it: think about your computer’s software. If the operating system that runs your computer was written in the late 1970s or late 1980s, it’s probably buggy because coders weren’t all that ready for the future that hit technology. So no matter how many times you add new features or new components to your computer’s operating system, if the original source code was buggy, then you can bet you’ll be seeing increasing number of bug fixes, security holes, product updates, patches, and service releases—and indeed we are, on a nearly weekly basis. Because unless you rewrite the code from scratch to be bug-free, you will always have buggy software.
Likewise, if the founding fathers were racist, then everything that derives from it inherits that racist intent. All white people are racist if they espouse the American way of life; blacks, Hispanics, and Asians cannot be racist because they did not participate in the core planning in the late 18th Century: they are victims of racism.
This second definition is a real attitude. This explains a lot of the weirdness people who espouse the dictionary definition see: a white person is racist no matter what he or she really believes, and a person of color—who says something overwhelmingly negative about white people—can never be a racist. No, it makes no sense per the dictionary definition, but is perfectly reasonable by the critical race theory definition.
A police department founded in the 19th Century by white men is racist, even if 40% of its officers are black, and only 30% are white: its racism is institutional and systemic, because the institution itself and the systems under which it operates were founded by racists.
Except, there are some fallacies with this. First, that economics drives class struggle is not a fact: it is a principle of Marxist thought, not economic reality. Second, that economics drives government systems is also a Marxist principle. There’s no “there” there, unless you assume Marxist thought is a proven fact. This also explains the tight marriage between AntiFa rioters and Marxist thought. Hint: the link between the two originates in academia in the mid-1960s (see Herbert Marcuse, who was the source architect) between Marxism and minority oppression.
So now you understand why a statue of Teddy Roosevelt is going to be racist even if he, himself, was not.
But bear in mind one other facet of statue desecration: historically, the people who do it are not trying to destroy what the original person represents. They’re trying to cover up their involvement in the history. Leftists aren’t trying to destroy Jefferson Davis’ legacy, they’re trying to sever the link that binds Leftists to their own participation in slavery. With no statue to make tomorrow’s generation ask “who was that,” and later “why was he a Democrat,” you avoid a lot of uncomfortable questions.
Statue destroyers aren’t erasing out past. They’re trying to hide theirs.
Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.