Who are card carrying conservative Republicans can be racist. Outside of that, there is no racism, is there? The 'Can anyone but white Americans be racist?' question has been asked for decades. It's stupid of course. That those asking it twisted the terms and conditions to make sure the answer was always no, doesn't mean the answer was anywhere close to right, real or based on common sense.
In fact, anyone with a modicum of pre-Multiculturally informed intelligence and a couple semesters of World History knows full well that racism, in various forms and expressions, has been around for eons, is still around, and sadly, will likely be around for ages to come. One thing that will help it is the self-imposed dumb of modern liberalism that goes to great lengths to excuse, deny, redefine, pardon, ignore or otherwise dodge dealing with issues that bring to light the fact that yes, Virginia, there are non-white, non-American, non-Conservative racists.
Kudos to The Washington Post for actually running a story that demonstrates the obvious point. Naturally racism can look different and come in many different packages. We have the classic variety, that down home Southerner hating him some Black people. Anti-Semitism is as good as always. But liberals have been anti-Semitic, and even Occupy Wall Street protesters, such leftist notables as Oliver Stone, and other progressive causes have said things that, if coming from the mouths of Conservative Americans, would have been labeled Nazi Propaganda 101.
Which is my point, and just goes to show that there are other forms of racism. Not just those in India, or even in parts of Africa or the Middle East. We have European and American liberals who demand the world conform to their morally superior views of gender, sex, economy and religion. We have the same group prepared to condemn, and condemn brutally, those cultures who refuse to get on board.
We also have what I might call an unintentional racism brought about by the ongoing crusade to destroy the heritage we inherited. So it goes like this. Have you ever wondered why we spend so much time focused on the Holocaust as opposed to, say, the victims of Imperial Japan? Why we condemn the allies for not doing anything in their power, possibly including bombing the Death Camps, to stop the Holocaust, but almost dismiss the carnage of Japan as incidental in order to condemn the Atomic Bombings?
I'm sure a lot of it is because of political and social agendas. Of that I'm almost positive. In an age of punditry over principles, consistency, truth and perspectives take a back seat to winning the argument of Now. Bias is as important to historical studies as joysticks were to old Atari games after all. But could it be because also, in the end, to most American minds (admittedly Conservative as well as Liberal, Religious or not, Catholic or not), the descendants of the Holocaust look a lot like:
While the descendants of the millions who died at the hand of Imperial Japan look a lot like:
I can't prove it, but you do have to wonder. After all, when Americans express concern about unrestricted immigration or show a willingness to act aggressively against Islam for dragging its feet about terrorism, the reason is always because we're a bunch of racists. So couldn't that be true in this case as well? Could it be that a reason - not the only reason, but a reason - for our casual dismissal of Japan's atrocities is that no matter how superior we see ourselves, no matter how morally advanced we reckon ourselves, in the end we're still inclined to a certain innate racism. Not the kind defined by liberals to trap America. But the real kind that has existed for eons and still exists, despite race, nationalist, creed, religion, non-religion, or gender? In the end, we just care about some people a little more than others, because it's what sinful humans in a fallen world do; we find ways of redefining what a neighbor really is.
I don't know. It makes me wonder. How can we act as if a single person killed in one instance must stop the world and demand all attention and excuse all violence perpetrated in the name of that person killed, while mentioning millions who were killed and terrorized is almost seen as an attempt to avoid the real important topic at hand? When are millions dead a topical diversion? Apparently when their descendants aren't making billion dollar cinematic epics, but instead are making dime store novelty toys in sweat shops. Whatever else might be the reasons behind the discrepancy in our focus, you have to admit...