I Still Believe in Goodwill.

Recently I came across a typical Social Justice Warrior's article where she was grinding her axe (Hat tip to the girl who sent it to me.  No surprise--I'm fairly sure she disagrees with me).  For kicks I decided to copy this SJW's article and mimic it--just switch it to me being a handicapped SJW grinding my handicapped axe, just another SJW axe that divides us more and more each day.  I wasn't able to copy it word for word, but much of that is because, as a handicapped man, I care about different things and she's at a later stage of life. But I got scarily close.  In some cases, I didn't change a word.

I'm not a Social Justice Warrior.   I try to follow Dr Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision (judging people on the basis of their character and not their skin) instead of the SJW's.  Their vision does not fight racism, sexism, ableism, or whatever at all.  It simply changes the power relationship. It reverses the taxonomy they claim we judge people with and so simply reverses who they believe are "good" and "bad" based on the reverse taxonomy. Yes, there are ableists, racists, sexists, and so on, everywhere and we need to fight those ideas.  Creating a reverse autonomy does not do that.  Indeed, I could legitimately claim that creating a reverse taxonomy makes the SJWs some of the biggest "ists" there are.

Despite all that I have been through, I refuse to believe that the world--everyone different from me--is against me.  I've walked many extra miles as a handicapped man and yet I still believe in goodwill.

Here's my article mimicking the Social Justice Warrior's article:

Why I’m Absolutely an Angry Crippled Man

Because when I was five, I had lost some sight, failed my IQ test because of it, and was therefore admitted to pre-kindergarten “conditionally.”  Because people were shocked when I could read so well in third grade. Because I was always the last pick to play on a team. Because in fifth grade I never actually played baseball on my baseball team and in sixth grade in basketball I sat on the sidelines until the very last game, when we were losing so badly that my coach threw me in and in those last two minutes I proved I was the most capable defensive player that ENTIRE SEASON. Because in 6^th grade people competed to push my wheelchair like it was a contest to walk the puppy, even though I could do it myself.  They thought I needed a “helping hand.” Because in 8^th grade, my doctors decided I needed to be shorter to combat scoliosis when it was already clear that that attempt sans back surgery was in vain.

Because in 9th grade when I switched schools the other guys were astonished I knew how to tackle. Because in 10th grade my doctors shamed and humiliated me by assigning me a clumsy device to “straighten my arm” that I had to wear everywhere in front of everybody.  Because in 11th grade I had to wear a cast in front of everybody in a musical because these doctors had then decided to surgically straighten my arm. Because when I ended up at a boarding school my senior year, my drama teacher asked my parents if he could ask me to clean off the brace I always wore on my wrist instead of asking me. Because everyone assumed I needed help everywhere.  Because I was a kid. Because I had to watch every game from the bleachers because I could not join a team. Because I was left out.  Because at first sight in high school I was unanimously and immediately considered a nerd and a clown and remained that all four years of high school. Because people looked down on me.

Because I was the only disabled person within the freshman class of 2006. Because teachers and administrators always encouraged me to cut gym. Because I was given a reward for overcoming my disability three years in a row even though I didn’t apply for it.  Because I was singled out at fraternity parties specifically because I was acting like most fraternity brothers, but people openly noticed and commented about me because I’m handicapped. Because I can’t drive in the UK even though my seizures do not affect my driving capability.

Because if I get married my limp will be one of the big things noticed by everyone in the audience. Because I’ll always get those “looks” even when I’m holding my beautiful child. Because every day I can see they see me as a different being. Because I’ve been called a cripple countless times in my life.  Because they don’t care about us. Because I’m never asked to help a neighbour move a dresser up a flight of stairs. Because I am not seen as a man. Because I am always seen as fragile. Because few people look me in the eye. Because I was forced to grow up and learn to endure before I was grown. Because I’ve been treated like a puppy. Because we aren’t entitled to boundaries. Because they think we are all here for their enjoyment. Because people don’t think we are people.

Because I could never be Spiderman at Halloween because that would just make me look more pathetic than people already think I am. Because throughout my life I wanted to be able and not different. Because I can’t be saved. Because I can’t protect myself. Because, when I go out at night, I know they would single me out and could easily rob and kill me. Because I am disposable. Because I am hated. Because we keep losing with life and dying but no one pays attention. Because they don’t care about our deaths. Because I have been told that by speaking about being oppressed I am victimizing myself. Because our deaths aren’t filmed and spoken about. Because doing the things that my able peers do with ease would make others laugh — fumbling with my wallet with one hand, occasionally having to ask someone to open the ketchup for my burger, looking someone in the eye to face them down, existing. Because I am afraid to relax. Because I am traumatized.

Because I have been laughed at, made fun of, kicked, shamed, humiliated, forced to deal with pain in “physiotherapy” that would be considered “torture” as defined by the United States Army’s Code of Military Conduct at least once per week during the fifteen years I had between my accident and my entrance into my university.    

Because there isn’t a place in the world Ableism hasn’t touched. Because I am trapped here. Because the playing field isn’t leveled. Because I love who I am. Because I love being a man. Because not accepting myself as less in the hierarchy is considered radical. Because I’ve been called an ableist for fighting back and encouraging others. Because all the major protests are stereotyped as cis white men in wheelchairs holding cardboard signs and are thus dismissed. Because I get no break from fighting. Because everything is a struggle. Because my anger isn’t validated. Because they don’t care about my pain. Because they don’t believe in my pain. Because they forgive themselves without atoning. Because I’m not free. Because the awareness of it permeates everything. Because it’s not ending. Because they teach the children that it’s already ended. Because someone will assert their supremacy over me today. Because they’ll do it tomorrow. Because I want more. Because I deserve better.

_____________

Liberty and its Limits

"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


The first amendment is solid on this. We have the freedom to speak our minds.  This goes for everything, no matter how vile.  Of course, people can righteously be hated for what they say, but their speech should not be prohibited.  According to Merriam-Webster, the American dictionary, speech is "a spoken expression of ideas, opinions, etc., that is made by someone who is speaking in front of a group of people; the ability to speak: spoken language."  Even though other Western nations may not have it written as firmly as in our first amendment, their citizens must have this right as well. 

Unless you are in a private organisation that has a definite speech code, even living under our our oppressive politically correct culture that divides us even more daily and destroys our ability to debate, in actuality this merely means we are living under an unofficial code. If we fail to obey that code, however, we have a much greater chance of being hated because we didn't follow the new code for being "polite." A rude comment can get you torched on Twitter.  It's one of the many reasons I am happy I'm not on Twitter.

We have to be allowed to be mean, rude, and boors sometimes if we are to deal with uncomfortable truths or to argue that these"truths" are wrong.  I do not endorse being a mean, rude boor--I prefer civilised debates and civilised behaviour--but sometimes it's got to be a fight to get your own point across or for them to get their point across.Because new rules are being made every day on sites such as Twitter, however, it's kind of impossible not to be a boor at some point or other.  Even these fights we have to engage in can be civilised in many cases if we follow the "polite" rules written for ladies and gentleman oh so long ago.  So many people have forgotten those old rules or have been taught not to follow them because people now claim they are sexist, but those rules still barely exist.  And, as far as I care, you can choose to be a lady or gentleman in different situations and thus eliminate the sexism that I admit is there.

Long ago, even when duelling was acceptable, there were specific rules everyone followed to keep mutual respect, even though whatever caused these duels was usually because one of those duellers had been a boor and insulted the other person too much in the first place.  They had been shamed to what they considered a humiliation and so wanted a full apology.  If the other person refused to give one, it could come to a duel.  But there were rules every step of the way.  And I use "person" deliberately.  Gentlemen AND ladies duelled in Hyde Park.

In any case, whether you are being boorish in having a fight or not, speaking metaphorically, it is unwise to bring a Styrofoam baton because you fear being hated to the gunfights we should be having in speaking about our country and, I would argue, the intolerant people we are becoming. We cannot debate in anything other than"politically correct" words and cannot debate "correct" views. We are simply supposed to accept and not question that  usually extremely new viewpoint.

Even so, there are limits to liberty.  It is one thing to speak your mind and get into a vicious fight about it when someone disagrees with you at the bar. The ability to fight another with incorrect words is a right we all have and should be able to follow. However, trying to force someone to accept your viewpoint as the truth even if they you disagree with them wholeheartedly is another matter.  If I punch the man I'm trying to get my point across to, that's not speech--that's violence.  Speaking non-metaphorically, if I actually brought a gun to the threatened fight and won it, that would be unacceptable because I harmed the other person.  If I stood up in a theatre and shouted that there was a fire and thus jeopardised people, that would be unacceptable because I might have potentially caused real harm. Doing this might also violate our freedom to peaceably assemble because I might cause a riot.  If I committed treason by whispering secrets to an enemy, I would cause real harm and put the United States in danger.  It is one thing to speak your mind, even if you are hated for it, and another to jeopardise others' liberty because you are speaking your mind.       

But, destroy this new code we're modifying every day.  It's extremely incorrect even if people call it politically correct.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I've already said here that it's dividing us more every day. Our democracies will also fail if we cannot speak freely and debate with strangers. Otherwise, we will just "preach to the choir" and convince ourselves that OUR viewpoint is the only correct one.  People will become more and more partisan and hard line.  More moderate people will be shut out even if they want to ask perfectly reasonable but "incorrect" questions about our politics and culture.  Because of this, our democracies will end.  There will be only one "correct," although unofficial, doctrine that wins.  No blurred lines.  Liberty has official limits which I believe are reasonable.  What is happening unofficially, however, is deeply wrong.  It trumps the danger terrorism in leagues and miles. If we continue in this manner, the glory of what we have achieved in the West (we have even succeeded in managing to support most of our people in poverty, offering welfare when it is usual to be poor!), will die.

The Process of Becoming a Patriot

I am proud to be American.  I have reason to be.  My many family branches can all be traced back to before the Revolution. Although we were very poor until recently, we fought against England in the Revolution and fought in the Civil War, among other things.

However, I know many people I would count at least as patriotic or more patriotic than I am. They wave the American flag even more than I do. Almost exclusively, they come from families that were legal immigrants who came during the ninth century. Whatever nation they came from and even though they have still have their own unique culture that is part of the wider American culture, they wave the American flag as enthusiastically as I do.

What is being part of your country?  I do not know the answer to this question specifically, but I would suggest it involves being proud of the values your country (or your culture) tries to represent, being proud of the many good deeds it has done in the past, and being proud of the many great figures it has had.  In America specifically, we most visible patriots tout our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, the many great figures that founded America (George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, to name a few) and the great figures that came after (like Abraham Lincoln).  Who cares if the patriot Paul Revere's swift ride overnight to warn the rebel militia in Lexington and Concord of British troops nearby became a more inflated legend? Paul Revere did do this as a patriot and his legend remains part of the American story.  We won the battle that came after at least partially because of his warning.

When immigrants came to our country in the nineteenth century, we consciously tried to make them American--not just refugees fleeing their own country.  That's one of the reasons, I'd argue, that our country is so rich in its culture.  We all celebrate Saint Patrick's day today.  Budweiser, for all their quality (it started in 1876 and the story is that Budweiser made good beer until we amended our Constitution to ban alcohol for a decade), is Germanic in origin.  Bagels were invented in Poland and came from the Polish Jewish community.  All are part of the wider American culture now.  And each of these cultures that spread to America still have their own culture today.  Many people are as proud of their roots as they are being American.  It's not a mutually exclusive thing.

Today this is no longer the case.  We do not try to make a conscious effort to "Americanise" the immigrants who come to America.  This has led to much political divisiveness for a very good reason.  If you immigrate to America, you must accept being American or that sets you in conflict with joining the wider American community.  It's quite simple--if you don't accept being American, you set yourself in conflict with Americans who have been here generations.  We have to tie ourselves in knots to accept your culture that you uniformly push on us AND reject our own culture. America welcomes you, aye, but that should require you to welcome becoming American.

Europe has the same problem now that the Syrian refugee crisis has come upon them.  In a conversation I had last night, one of my friends here cited a poll that more British Muslims were proud to be British than your normal Brit.  I cannot verify the poll, but I'm not surprised.  Each of their families made the CONSCIOUS decision to become part of Great Britain and the British culture.  They learned English.  They accepted the queen or king that was ruling at the time and the cultural significance of that.  They accepted the idea of Parliament.  Aye, they may have changed the culture a bit, but they did not change the wider British culture.   All those Brits who are running off to Syria are the sons and daughters of Muslim families who moved here a generation or more ago, not those immigrants who immigrated.  And radical clerics are a new thing, not an old thing.  Muslims do not serve alcohol in their restaurants because of their religion, but if you want a pint you can easily get one elsewhere.

My point here is that one of the worries many European nations have about the Syrian refugee crisis is that Western culture might fall because of it.  They do have an argument.  That's one of our troubles with illegal immigration.  However, this problem can be solved.  It's quite simple, really: do what we did in the nineteenth century.  Do what those British Muslims did generations ago.  Don't reject.  However, acclimate them as well. Germany, stress Bismark, Frederic the Great, and how you became Germany.  France, you have so many figures: Charles de Gaul, Napoleon, and Charlemagne to name a few.  Your culture is significant.  Invite these people to become part of your country and your culture instead of force them to stay part of an entirely different culture independent of your country.  Don't keep them refugees.  Make them part of a country they can be proud of living in.

Then, I can assure you, in a few generations these people--patriots now--will be waving your flag as enthusiastically as you do.        

And so we roll... PC prejudice

Pre-jud-gice.

It comes from the Latin pre-, then the Latin judico with the j.  To pre-judge a person is to judge a person before you know them.  There is all sorts of prejudice, from racism, sexism, or the lot to ageism.  Part of what we have been trying to do in our time is eliminate prejudice. However, what we have done in this modern world is the exact opposite of our goal.  This is the result of the taxonomy which we have tried to create to fight different prejudices.  In doing so, we have created a more prejudiced society--perhaps more than we had before.  Fighting and eliminating Jim Crow resulted from a lot of dialogue between African Americans and white Americans.  Many Southerners, before Jim Crow ended, liked the African Americans they knew but not the African Americans.  The end of Jim Crow and much of the South's racism was partly due to dialogue--white Southerners realised they had been stupid because of their judgement of an entire race when the people they actually knew were quite decent people.

Ah, yes.  Dialogue.  Between different peoples helping to end bias. You know, that Martin Luther King thing about judging people by their character instead of their skin colour.  Judge not, lest ye be judged.

This is entirely anecdotal, but I have noticed that in many documentaries and stories I've seen these days they quote only the last sentence of his speech, "I have a dream today!"and not the few sentences before that statement where Dr. King states his vision.  It is a vision I adore and try to follow. It is one of the most important ideas to me and extends to everyone. I don't always succeed in following his vision, but I try.

What do we eliminate when we huddle in our little politically correct boxes?  Dialogue.  What does this result in?  Stereotypes.  What are stereotypes?  Automatic judgements based solely on the basis of race, gender, and the like.  What is that? Prejudice.  You know, racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, ageism, and the list ever continues as more isms are made up.

This is one reason why the politically correct doctrine is one of, if not the most, prejudiced doctrines there is.  Yes, there are racists, homophobes, and sexists.  Prejudices abound.  But within the politically correct doctrine, ALL people are divided in this way and MUST be.  I'm automatically a bigot.  But--here's the important piece--under this doctrine, everyone else is, too.

I sometimes feel like a hippie reinforcing this, even though I am close to the opposite.  But we are one people--all of us.  Whether you consider this observation Lincoln's or the Gospel's (both are true), if we're divided we cannot stand.  Lincoln also observed, "We should be too big to take offense and too noble to give it." And yet taking offense is all we do.  And how can we be too noble to give offense when the most minor thing we do may be an considered by someone an offense?

I realise that Lincoln is just "an old dead white man,"  This is true.  But if you dismiss his observation because of this this you reveal your inner prejudice against old dead white men.  Just because he is an old dead white man does not make his observation not true.  The same goes for the Gospel.  I am far from a devout Christian, but you reveal your bias against Christianity and your lack of knowledge. The century before Jesus of Nazareth was born, the Roman Republic tore itself apart with the death of Julius Caesar.  Do you think Judea ignored what was happening?

This is another reason why the politically correct doctrine is the most prejudiced doctrine out there. It assumes too much and necessarily forgets the historical context in which these people were operating. It forgets facts for convenience.  Thomas Jefferson is busy being forgotten in the United States because he owned slaves.  He did.  However, he was far from unique and that does not make his work at the time invalid.  His Declaration was the basis on which Lincoln advocated to end slavery.

And so, context is forgotten and old white men are forgotten because they were old white men and what they did in that time, considered routine then, makes them horrible people. Jefferson helped create the first representational government. Those busy writing off Jefferson, however, must also erase history and reveal their bias against history. 

Was Nelson Mandela horrible?  He managed to create South Africa despite the racism there and he wasn't an old white man.  However, he was a Communist terrorist who spent many years in prison because of it.  Ah, history dies.  I take offense.

And so we roll, building up prejudices against prejudices, making ourselves hate other people ever more because of their inner unknown prejudices against someone or something we have and forcing us to become huge misanthropes.  We shiver more in our politically correct little boxes, afraid to broach subjects with people who happen to look or be different than we are.  Either that, or we think it's incorrect to do so.  For example, it is incorrect for men to mention abortion because we're simply men.  We would be the fathers of these children but it is incorrect for us to talk about it.  

Discussion is quashed.  We cannot speak to each other.  So important topics don't get discussed and important issues are left unaddressed.  We could not destroy Jim Crow today because we couldn't talk about it.  Either that, or it would be destroyed by the government without our understanding.  George Wallace's stature wouldn't have died.  And so, there would be many more real racists today than there are. 

It makes me laugh.  I'm no longer terrified by PC, because I find it quite amusing.  I know we'll fail because we are so selfish we stay in their politically correct little boxes, don't talk, and follow that believe that we are hopelessly divided weak little babies who need safe spaces to recover from a little argument.  Because of this, following the politically correct doctrine makes us hopeless prejudiced people with the most lopsided ideology that justifies racism while fighting it.  

But PC is not true.  When you miss a step and trip on the sidewalk, the hand that helps you up might not have the same pigment you have.  When you see an accident and want to help, you don't care about that person's skin, sex, or sexual preference.  You just want to help them up.

But, we believe we will remain hopelessly divided, because the academia and activists say we are. And that makes PC one of the most racist, sexist, homophobic, and other ist ideologies there is.   

Compassion, Empathy, and the PC Poison Pill

This is a situation familiar to all of us and it's fairly simple.  You see a complete stranger grieving and you feel compassion.  You want to comfort them.  Sometimes there are chances when you can actually go ahead and comfort them and other times due to circumstance you cannot.

For me, one of those times came in May 2011.  It was in the last month of my university career and I was walking back from a late-night tour of our small campus and about to go to bed.  When I came to my dormitory, however, I saw a young black college girl sobbing on a bench.  I wanted to help and I had time to. She was crying about some affair that had to do with her boyfriend. I sat down with her and said it would be okay, everything would work out, and other things of that nature.  I didn't know what was going on.  I did not know her pain, but I felt her having it.  But I wanted to try to help.  I did not know how much impact my attempt to comfort had at the time.  However, I must have done something because about a week later she asked me to a movie.  For those interested, I declined because of a paper.

I did not see this as a unique thing.  Aye, I noticed her race, but that wasn't important to me.  What was important to me was that I saw a girl in tears.

Now, let's view this situation another way.  I was a man and she was a woman.  That is one barrier that was between us.  Secondly, I was a privileged white man and she was a unprivileged black girl. These two things make it more impossible for me to understand her grief alongside the usual reasons I cannot fully understand her grief--I didn't live it.  She could have seen me as a privileged white boy who could not comfort her because I was a privileged white boy, looked down on her consciously or unconsciously, and so my compassion and empathy was somewhat false.  I could have walked by because I figured there was nothing I could do because of her sex and the pigment of her skin.

Those two final sentences I just wrote is the PC poison pill.  It not only divides us as simple humans, but it divides us because it just sets more barriers between us.  It limits our ability to have empathy and compassion because if we accept PC it is essential to believe that another class, sex, race, or whatnot cannot fully feel empathy or compassion for you because its unconscious motives are vile and so you and another are forever separated by these unconscious motives.  You are limited in your ability to feel empathy and compassion for another person because the other person belongs in a whole different PC box.  Compassion and empathy are also limited in general because PC puts us in so many different categories and thus creates so many more walls between us.

Do you want to swallow the PC poison pill?  I don't.  

The Subjectivity of Beauty

Many women have written about the absurd rules that govern womanly beauty encouraged by models modelling for fashionable designers.  Everyone is inadequate to compare.  Therefore, I think it’s time for a man to offer his honest thoughts on the subject because I am your typical man when it comes to beauty. 

                       

I’m sure there’s some primal instinct that attracts us men initially to the hourglass just as I'm sure there’s a primal instinct in women that attracts them to tall six packs.  That’s not the end game, however.  That’s not even the beginning.

Some men prefer blond hair.  Others brown.  Others black.  Many men particularly like red hair.  I myself have my own preference, but just because I like one colour doesn't mean I wouldn't marry some girl with another.  I could go on listing different preferences on other matters that interest men like me.  I understand that women have certain standards to rate men like height, muscle, grooming, and so on.  I am not particularly short or tall.  I do not own a six pack.  I do not dress well.  I do have other beautiful qualities, however, such as my eyes.

Men also banter-rate—“Oh, she’s a seven!”  I've overheard women doing the same.  But—what do these ratings mean in real terms?  What if a man wants to have a genuine romantic relationship with a woman that does not last a day?

Truth:  These standards mean almost nothing in the long term.  There are beautiful qualities in each person and there aren't.  But you don’t need everything.  Far from it.

When I am in a social situation, get into a conversation with a girl, and then decide that I might want to meet again and so ask for her number, I am not checking her out all the time even though she may feel that way.  I am not even trying to pursue something big yet, although if we connect strongly it might start there.  I simply want to continue the conversation.  A romantic relationship is a possibility that we may explore quickly or slowly later, but first I want to begin to know the girl.  The girl who eventually wins my heart won’t do so by the beauty of her body.  It’s the beauty of her character, the way we connect, that’ll do it.

Now—flash back to that social situation in which I get into a conversation with a girl.  You may argue that the girl’s outside beauty is what makes me begin to try to talk with her.  I will concede that that may play a part.  I have two observations on that issue, though.

1.  Most people are beautiful and not beautiful.  So, I’ll almost definitely see something that I like anyway—and that something might not amount to much.  If said girl is confident/not confident in a certain way I might try to strike up a conversation with her.

2.  Nine times out of ten, the girl I'm talking to at the beginning has friends.  If I end up not connecting with her, I might connect with one of her friends.

You don’t need to be a model for me or other men to fall in love with you.  I agree with others that these standards are absurd.  Those high standards that scare you don’t amount to much in the real world to real men.  I will ask you out on a date to know YOU, not your makeup.  I will think about falling in love with YOU, not your makeup.

This is not to say that we should all be sloths.  I make sure my suit and tie are perfect when I need them.  What this does say, however, is that you shouldn't worry overmuch about meeting that kind of standard.  You don’t necessarily need to prepare to go to a pub unless you want to.  A shirt and some jeans can usually do the trick.  We men will see you and your beauty anyway unless you actively try to hide it. Truth be told, when it comes to inner beauty and love, there are few if any standards.    

Patriot or Not, Why You Should Salute Your Flag

I'm going to use American society to talk about this because American society is what I know.  This applies to every nation, however.

We’re tearing ourselves apart.  The reason is quite simple: in seeking the noble diversity we have begun categorising ourselves to a greater extent than needed.  I am a disabled straight white American, which differentiates me from a disabled straight black American.  This black American may have exactly the same wound I do, have exactly the same economic situation I do, may have exactly the same views I do—the only thing that divides us is the pigment of our skin.

Yet, this difference puts him in a whole different situation than mine.  He faces different political pressures than I do, a different social situation, different grievances of his friends—basically everything.     

Why is this? Because many people try to find ways in which we are a victim everywhere instead of emphasising how we can rise above that.  We no longer try to unify—we differentiate.  It’s almost as if you aren't a victim or don’t yourself as a victim, you are a horrible oppressing person.  I do not deny that there is prejudice in the world and that many people are victims.  But people can “overcome.”  The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s was to overcome Jim Crow and racism.  In most ways it succeeded.  Yes, there are racists out there.  But that’s not all of us or even most of us.  I would argue that people are becoming more racist today than they were twenty years ago because this difference is constantly pounded into us.  These differences are emphasised for all ethnic, racial, religious, sexual, and others I've forgotten because there are so many categories to put us into. There’s a joke quiz on Reddit in which white supremacists and social justice warriors’ statements are put up with the people these supremacists or SJWs are talking about left out.  You have to guess whether the statement is from a supremacist or an SJW.  The statements aren't that different at all.

One professor has recently emphasised that Asians have blended into our society even though they were discriminated against as much if not more than blacks were in society in the 1960s.  I can’t wait until their separation because of race is pounded into them so much that they feel alienated from America’s society—it’s going to come.  It’s already true in the museums.  To add to the tearing apart, I have pointed out before how the Irish and Italians blended into our American society despite the fact that they were discriminated against so much when they first came over.  There are vibrant Irish and Italian cultures within America that are American.  They succeeded in getting into the melting pot. 

I didn't think this could happen, but the Irish came under attack recently for the same reasons that they were under attack a century and more ago—for drinking.  A porch collapsed under them and a few died in the collapse.  This article specifically targeted them as bawdy Irish drinkers (and one as an Irish American) during their report.  The New York Times used their report of the tragedy to discriminate against the Irish. Thankfully, Ireland took issue with the article and called The New York Times’ apology pathetic.

I come from all over Northwest Europe and many of us university students did the same thing these Irish are accused of in university—whatever our race or social category.  I can go so far as to say I myself was involved in a porch collapse in 2010.  We were extremely lucky in that the worst injury was a broken ankle.  I walked away unharmed.  I’m almost certain, however, that very few of the people on the porch that night were specifically Irish American.  We were just stupid college kids.  

Now this discrimination and categorisation against the stereotypical Irish culture has come back into American society though one of the United States’ leading newspapers.  It drove a wedge between Ireland and us.  If it continues, the Irish will once again be an alienated “race” (the New York Times’ description). 

It makes me sick, it really does.  I can’t count how many Irish-American friends who love their Irish heritage and love America with thorough patriotism.  You can be part of a specific culture and be an American patriot.  It’s not hard.

The solution to bring ourselves back together is surprisingly simple and extremely hard to do if you keep your grudge.  I doubt my professors who emphasise these social differences would like what I'm about to say.

Love your nation.  If it’s America, like mine, love the Stars and Stripes.  We all live under the same flag.  We’re one people.  If you belong to another nation, you can be proud.   No nation is perfect, but we try.  You don’t have to love every person—prejudices endure between us—but we are one nation, with or without God, hoping to be indivisible, and trying to bring liberty and justice to all.

We've been through a hell of a lot together, some good and some bad.  Our past is filled with both.  But it’s a shared past and a shared idea that we can all share together.

Sometimes the condition that the United States is in today makes me want to weep.  I still love it, though.  We still have a chance—every Western nation has a chance—to bring ourselves back if we start saluting what our flag tries to stand for.