Nowadays, many Americans assume that the legacy of racism no longer affects the qualitative dynamics within American society. One of the reasons for this is that for the duration of the last few decades, the government remained strongly committed to endorsing the policy of multiculturalism/political correctness. In its turn, this is believed to have resulted in endowing most citizens with much respect towards the idea of interracial tolerance. Nevertheless, as practice shows racism continues to exert a strong influence on the society. The validity of this suggestion can be illustrated with ease, regarding the 2014 racial riots in Fergusson (Missouri), provoked by the death of the innocent African-American teenager Michael Brown at the hands of a White police officer. As Cunha noted: “When a police officer shoots a young, unarmed black man in the streets, then does not face indictment, anger in the community is inevitable” (par. 1). It was namely during the mass rallies held in Fergusson against the racist brutality of police that the popular slogan ‘Black lives matter’ was heard for the first time.
At an initial glance, the fact that there is a clearly defined institutional quality to the racial bias against African-Americans (shared by many White cops) will appear making very little sense. After all, just about any police officer can now end up facing the accusation of racism for doing as little as posting a message with the n-word in it on Facebook (Suarez par. 1). At the same time, however, law enforcement agents are often able to get away with practicing racial profiling in the most blatant manner and using stun guns on Black people at will, because the latter happened to look ‘suspicious’. This is the reason why many African-Americans now experience a strong fear of police – all due to their awareness of the fact that they can be victimized by cops with ease.
It is understood, of course, that this situation can hardly be deemed appropriate, especially given its apparent unnaturalness. After all, there is indeed something utterly illogical about the intensification of racial tensions in this country, despite the government’s continual effort in combating racism. Nevertheless, it will not prove too hard explaining the concerned phenomenon. The currently enacted ‘eracism’ policies in America are based on the conceptually fallacious assumption that the notion of ‘racism’ is synonymous with the notion of ‘irrational hatred’ and that education is the key to making the society more tolerant. In this respect, Stephens came up with the insightful observation: “What many self-styled anti-racists and leftists fail to understand — that racism is not an issue of moral character… the broader economic order facilitates and benefits from racial subjugation” (par. 12).
In other words, it is specifically the objective socioeconomic circumstances that predetermine racist prejudices in people, and not their irrational ‘evilness’. While continuing to suffer from being socially and economically underprivileged, African-Americans naturally fall victims to police brutality. What this means is that there can be only one effective solution to the issue – Black people’s socio-political empowerment. The reason for this is simple – only the socially integrated and materially prosperous individuals can take full advantage of their constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms. Contrary to the popular belief, a social right is not something given but rather taken. It is understood, of course, that the empowerment-related agenda of African-Americans is quite incompatible with the agenda of those Whites who consider themselves this country’s ‘rightful owners’.
This simply could not be otherwise. The more powerful become the representatives of a particular racial minority in America, the weaker is the societal influence of those who comprise the dominant ethnosocial group within the society – the so-called ‘WASPs’ (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). These people are fully aware (even if unconsciously) that their dominant status is something that needs to be actively fought for on a continual basis. As the part of their applied effort, in this regard, they promote a number of the seemingly progressive, but fundamentally erroneous ideas, intended to divert the society’s attention from the issues that really do matter, such as the rapidly widening gap between the rich and poor in this country.
One of such ideas is concerned with the cause of protecting ‘animal rights’ as something that has the value of a thing-in-itself. In light of what has been said earlier, the idea’s conceptual premise cannot be deemed legitimate. The reason for this is that the very notion of ‘right’ presupposes that those entitled to it have many social responsibilities as well. Animals, on the other hand, do not have any social functions by definition. Therefore, they cannot have ‘rights’ – at least for as long as the term’s conventional denotation is concerned. Animals are still entitled to humane treatment, but it is wrong referring to them as legal subjects, as the ‘animal rights’ activists do: “Animal rights advocates such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Animal Liberation Front hold that humans and animals have the same rights” (Nelson 175). Thus, the ‘animal rights’ movement is best described as yet another Liberal fetish, reflective of its affiliates’ highly illogical/wishful way of thinking. Apparently, there is nothing accidental about the fact that most ‘animal rights’ activists consist of mentally unstable/childless White ‘ecofeminists’ – the category of citizens clearly affected by biological degeneracy (Gaarder 55). The movement’s only practical function is that it enables its affiliates to collect monetary donations for the ‘good cause’, as well as to extort money from the ‘animal-unfriendly’ companies. Ensuring the well-being of animals is the last item on these people’s list of priorities (Huggett 604).
Therefore, the suggestion that ‘animal rights’ should be prioritized above those of African-Americans is preposterous at best. It is important to understand that the ‘animal rights’ movement is the intellectual byproduct of Liberalism – the ideology that glorifies the essentially Eurocentric values of irrational greed, individualism, and consumerism (Rooksby 501). These values are intrinsically incompatible with the workings of one’s ‘Black’ psyche, extrapolated by the person’s communal mindedness, holistic spirituality, and his or her respect for ancestral traditions. While acting on behalf of animals, White ‘ecofeminists’ are primarily driven by their selfish longing to feel better about themselves, rather than by their genuine desire to protect our four-legged friends from being treated cruelly. Most African-Americans, however, are too mentally (and physically) healthy to experience such a longing. Unlike what it is the case with Whites, brothers and sisters are too busy trying to get on with their lives to afford the dubious luxury of being affected by too many self-reflective (degenerative) thoughts. If a Black person wants to help animals, he or she will shelter them and buy them food, as opposed to indulging in ridiculous demagogy about the importance of protecting these animals’ ‘rights’.
The above-stated suggests that one’s willingness to defend ‘animal rights’ is best referred to as being indicative of the concerned individual’s perceptual infantilism. The very notion of ‘animal rights’ is nothing but yet another meaningless buzz-term, invented by degenerative Whites out of boredom. Therefore, the promotion of these ‘rights’ cannot be possibly considered a serious undertaking – especially when assessed from the perspective of African-Americans. The current state of affairs with defending the civil rights of Black people, however, implies something entirely opposite. As it was pointed out earlier, the police have always discriminated against African-Americans. During the recent years, however, the situation in this respect has gotten even worse.
In the year 2015, more than one hundred of unarmed Black men have been shot to death by overreacting White cops (“Mapping Police Violence” par. 1). This illustrates better than anything that the civil rights of Black citizens in this country continue to be blatantly violated. And, as it was argued earlier, ‘rights’ are not given – they are taken. After having realized that the police’s high-ranking officials are not doing anything to address the situation, more and more African-Americans come to conclude that they should take the matter into their own hands. Cops must learn once and for all that Black lives are just as precious as the White ones. If police officers continue to abuse their powers while dealing with Black people, they will have better get ready to see more racial riots taking place across the country, as well as police cars being set on fire in record numbers.
Works Cited
Cunha, Darlena. “Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting.” Time. 2014. Web.
Gaarder, Emily. “Where the Boys Aren’t: The Predominance of Women in Animal Rights Activism.” Feminist Formations, vol. 23, no. 2, 2011, pp. 54-76.
Huggett, Brady. “When Animal Rights Turns Ugly.” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 26, no. 6, 2008, pp. 603-605.
“Mapping Police Violence.” MPV. 2015. Web.
Nelson, Michael. “Animal Rights and Welfare: A Documentary and Reference Guide.” Reference & User Services Quarterly, vol. 55, no. 2, 2015, pp. 175-178.
Rooksby, Ed. “The Relationship between Liberalism and Socialism.” Science & Society, vol. 76, no. 4, 2012, pp. 495-520.
Stephens, Robert. “In Defense of the Ferguson Riots.” Jacobin. 2014.
Suarez, Alexandra. “Police Racism: Georgia Officer Fired for Using N-word in Facebook Messages.” International Business Time. 2016.