Reading DougWils.com today, a post entitled The Leftward Drift of the Gospel Coalition, I came upon his following statement: “So if a racist is anybody who is winning an argument with a leftist, I have sometimes been racist. But if we divide racial sins into two biblical categories, I have hated that kind of sin for as long as I can remember. Those two categories would be racial animosity and racial vainglory. The Bible flatly condemns both of those ugly sisters. But the Bible does not condemn answering the left according to its folly. So both of those sins are wicked, and one of the central reasons Christ came was to overcome ethnic hostility as well as to cast down every form of ethnic vainglory.” Notice the words leftist and left used in the political sense occurs three times in my selected passage. I am a definition hawk! Before debating any topic, I insist we define our terms, and set ground rules for what constitutes an acceptable definition. My ground rules for definitions: 1. Must be precise, in language that creates a shared visual representation; 2. Must be mutually agreed upon by the debaters; 3. Must be accurate, either verifiable or based on the preponderance of evidence.
Mr. Wilson then provides an acceptable definition of left wing and right wing. Though I much prefer the definition offered by comedian Pat Paulsen in his satirical presidential campaigns–“I’m middle of the bird, because if a bird leans too heavily on either wing, it flies in circles“–it doesn’t meet my ground rules. Pastor Wilson’s point is worth bold print.
“Our common metaphor of “right wing” and “left wing” comes from the seating arrangements in the French legislative assembly after their revolution. The fire-eaters sat on the left side while the more moderate revolutionaries sat on the right—but they were all revolutionaries. This set-up continues down to the present day. We have left-wingers who want to nationalize health care, for example, which means they want socialized medicine. We have secular right-wingers who oppose that proposal, but have no problem with the government running the schools—socialized education. They oppose the government mangling our bodies, but are supportive when the government mangles our minds. These conservatives are simply moderate revolutionaries—advocates of increasing statist control, provided everything stays in slow motion.”
I thoroughly and wholeheartedly agree with that preceding paragraph. Now you may ask, “what does all the foregoing have to do with being racist?” Let’s first list the most popular shibboleths shut-your-mouth-isms of today: racist, white supremacist, white nationalist, sexist. If I were to read nothing but left wing propaganda reporting, from CNN, MSNBC, CNN, WaPo, NY Times, CNN and their ilk, the bulk of their charges against non-leftists would be the first three shut-your-mouth-isms, which I define as charges designed to marginalize your opinion so that you 🤐. As Pastor Wilson said, “a racist is anybody who is winning an argument with a leftist.” That’s why it’s important to define leftist before tackling racist.
Now, some specifics. Last week I saw a black Audi TT with a bumper sticker that said, “black cars matter.” I laughed, and I even took a picture. Am I racist? Every morning I read Charles Spurgeon daily meditations. I have a choice between a black background with white letters, or white background with black letters. I always prefer the former. Am I racist for choosing white letters or, by choosing the black background am I denying my inherent racism, thus proving I am racist? A good friend of mine is a sports fan, like me, and we both tend towards being analytical about it–we look for patterns. He is older than me, and we both have three children. We have trained our children to be able to analyze patterns, and for the most part our children are not fooled by superficial appearances. But one of my friend‘s sons still gets fooled by what racism is. His dad noted that in football, speed positions–wide receivers, running backs, cornerbacks and safeties–are dominated by black players, by more than 95%. Can this be meaningless, or irrelevant, or coincidental? No, it is statistically significant. But if he mentions that observation, his son says “dad, that’s racist!” How so?
By using the cartoon of Angelfood McSpade am I racist? The character was featured regularly during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s output of the rogue cartoonist R. Crumb, famous for “head comics”, a genre which appealed to hippies, heads (dopers) and radicals–all of whom were deemed “counterculture”, until they grew up and became the culture. Was that audience racist? They were in the forefront of protesting racism, but say that today, and the comeback will be something like “that proves they felt guilty about their racism.” Angelfood McSpade is one of Crumb’s most notorious targets for accusations of sexism and racism. Crumb has responded that he did not invent racist caricatures like Angelfood, but that they used to be part of the American culture in which he was raised. He saw the character as a criticism of the racist stereotype itself and assumed that the young liberalhippie/intellectual audience who read his work were not racists and would understand his intentions for the character. Today his explanation would be shouted down and he would be tweet-lynched. Here is his brief epitaph from the Internet Chronicle:
“FRANCE–September 5, 2014. Fans mourn the death of Robert Crumb, also known as R Crumb, who died suddenly Thursday from a rare exploded prostate. Crumb was known for his cartoon characters Fritz the Cat, Mr. Natural, and the album artwork on Janis Joplin’s Cheap Thrills. Crumb ignited the Underground Comix movement in Haight-Asbury in the 60’s and was the subject of the documentary film Crumb. His iconic acid-inspired work has been entombed on the walls of museums everywhere and regularly fetches millions in major auctions. Crumb’s vast fortune was disbursed to several charities, including the West Africa Ebola Foundation and The Women’s Liberation Front. He was a lifetime fan of women with large legs, and his Devil Woman character inspired Queen’s hit single Fat Bottomed Girl.”
When I read this, it struck me as something he would write to self satirize. Lambiek.net, an online encyclopedia of comic books, says he is still alive and still producing comics, in France. Readers of my era will probably find this fascinating. The rest of you can go tweet or something. My point is that the cartoonist was not satirizing black women, he was satirizing people who stereotyped black women! He satirized everyone, especially his own fans and the hippie/drug culture. Back then, the freewheeling 60’s, you could satirize and not fear for your life. No longer, because the charge of racism is wayyy to useful to the leftists in control of the media and college campuses, as an effective means of shutting down disagreement! So call me a racist if you want. If I try to defend myself against RACIAL HOSTILITY or RACIAL VAINGLORY (“white supremacy ” for you ignoramuses), that will be evidence for you that I am racist. Fortunately, I don’t care about that kind of opinion.