So-called "progressive" elites love to attribute everything — from differential outcomes to climate change — to Racism. Everything must be examined solely in the context of Racism. The conventional wisdom among them is that all white people are Racist. And that there is nothing they can do about it due to the color of their skin! CRT and the 1619 Project are in. The entire Western canon is out. Anyone who dares to challenge the new conventional orthodoxy is promptly and universally smeared as a bigot and a Racist. And that person will be accused of trafficking in microagressions and hate speech — even for the slightest unintentional acts of presumed affrontery.
Alright, let's talk about Racism. Microaggressions, too. I say a study is needed to determine why movie villains have almost always been portrayed as white people. Whether it be the Joker, the Penguin, the Riddler, Poison Ivy, and Egghead from the Batman series; Max Zorin (Arayan superman); or Dr. No, Auric Goldfinger, Alec Trevelyan, and Francisco Scaramanga in the James Bond flicks, it's always the same: the bad dude — or dudette, in the case of Poison Ivy — is white. What's up with that?
The Master, Rassilon, and other unsavory characters in Britain's Dr. Who series are also Caucasian. Hell, even its "Black Guardian" character is white.
Then there is the "Wolf of Wall Street." Okay, that movie is based on a real person, but still...you get the picture, right?
As for television...well, almost every evil character is a white man, often a businessman. And pretty much all the dumb ones, too. Even on television commercials, men are continually made to look like incompetent, bumbling, ignorant fools, people who couldn't possibly figure out how to properly scrub a toilet even if they could be made to do so.
Furthermore, how come when anyone wants to convey his opinion that someone is intolerant or evil, he automatically brands that person a Hitler? Why not label him a Dada, after the notorious Butcher of Uganda, Idi Amin Dada? "Dada" is more fun to say than "Hitler," anyway. Or he could smear him as a Pot, à la Pol Pot, the brutal Cambodian commie who saw to the slaughter of 25% of his country's citizens in the Cambodian Killing Fields. "Pot" is easier to say than "Hitler," and takes less time to utter, as it's just one syllable.
We should be more inclusive in terms of our villains.
But no, it's always "whitey" who takes it on the chin. And who determined that, if one wants to surrender, one should wave a white flag? I don't recall having any input on that decision. Are all white people cowards? Is that what's being implied? Is that why scary situations are often said to be "white knucklers"?
Not convinced of the conspiracy yet? Why do we tell little white lies, hmmm? Is it only white people who are dishonest? If something is overly costly and not worth keeping around, why is it called a white elephant? Talk about triggering!
Are you starting to get it now? No? Well, is the term "white trash" affirming and welcoming? No, it's a vile epithet. And finally, if a person is particularly pale, why do we call him "ghastly white"?! No one has ever labeled anyone else "ghastly black," or "ghastly" brown, yellow, or red, for that matter. Who did this to us? Where is the diversity, equity, and inclusion? Whence the reparations?
What to make of these ramblings? There's no whitewashing it: if you choose to think of yourself as a victim, you are one.
And that, my friends, is black and white.