One of the grossest sins of leftist ideology is the practice of reverse racism – that is, accepting racist and hateful remarks against the majority, while reviling even basic criticisms of trends in minority populations, let alone the common-sense use of profiling in criminal investigations.
So while it is wrong to keep minorities, for instance, out of colleges due to their race, it is perfectly acceptable to keep qualified whites out in order to place less qualified minorities in their place. In liberal ideology, two wrongs certainly CAN make a right.
Nowhere is this thin-skinned, holier-than-thou, feigned or real horror at 'blasphemous' remarks more obvious than when talking about minorities, esp. black Americans, and especially the first black president.
Now, some will argue that comparing blacks to monkeys hearkens back to the days of harsh racism, and they would be correct. But does that mean that we can NEVER compare Obama to a monkey or a ghetto thug when the analogy is appropriate, or just satirical and biting?
Does that mean that any resemblance between the actions of Obama and the ills of the black community, be they out of wedlock childbirth, high incarceration, crack addiction, thuggery, pot use, or obsession with bling and 40oz beers, is racist? Are comparisons to Darth Vader racist too, since Vader was 'black'?!?
The real issue is that we have so overcomensated for the oppression of minorities in the past, that now such criticisms or humor are the equivalent of blasphemy speech. Why can we no longer offend others with humor, ridicule, or comparisons to animals? We may find such things uncivil and rude, but should rudeness be illegal? And one-sided rudeness?
But lets get even 'darker,' if I may.
There is a deeper reason why comparing a black man to a monkey is so offensive. Not just because it was used in racism, but because the color and facial features of Africans ARE noticeably more similar to apes than those of non-blacks. The flatter nose, the darker skin, the sometimes larger lips, mouths, and more prominent brow.
These similarities may make us uncomfortable, but they shouldn't - they are merely obvious observations, perhaps even quantifiable with science.
The question is, what do we DO with such observations?
Here's where Darwinism's affect on culture enters the picture. If we are evolutionists, the conclusions are CLEAR. As Darwin observed, such races are probably closer to chimps in the evolutionary tree (and while Darwin was opposed to slavery, he too had to live with this disagreement between his ethic and the implications of his theory).
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."
– Descent of Man, Chapter 6
I mean, the central thesis of evolution has long been 'similarity means relatedness.' The more morphologically similar (and now, genetically) two creatures are, the more related they are. And here's just one place where evolutionary thought breaks down – Darwinism has clear ethical implications which conflict with the commonly held, and objectively CORRECT view of the equality of men.
How the Darwinist view conflicts with human rights
As many have argued, the atheist/evolutionist world view can not be followed with integrity if you want to hold on to the ethics of human dignity and equality or moral absolutes. You have to say you believe there is no God and that man is an animal, but you then live as if men are higher than animals, and all men are equal, even if evolution and atheism teach that these constructs are subjective, or not so at all.
So the real problem with comparing Obama to an ape is more than just the reality that people will see it as a racist overture even when you don't mean it so – it reveals the inherently racist precepts of evolution, which state that, because blacks are OBVIOUSLY morphologically more similar to apes, they are inferior…er…less evolved.
The crux of the problem, and the root of liberal outrage in this case, is this: In order to distance themselves from the obvious application of their own world view, liberals have to manufacture and muster up an over-reacted indignation.
They pant "Of course, no one would believe that blacks are inferior – of course we don't believe that! (Even though our world view clearly implies that)." Basically, they are trying to convince us, and themselves, that they can hold on to these mutually exclusive ideas (atheism/evolution and human dignity), and what better way to do that than to accuse *us* of racism when we bring up the obvious.
But when we compare Obama to a monkey, we are not being racists as they suppose – comparison to a monkey is like comparison to a pig – because these animals have salient qualities that we use to mock our human opponents. But if you are an evolutionist, racism MUST be implied with such comparisons, because, as Darwin himself showed, it logically demands it.
As a creationist, I may be tempted to call Obama a baboon, but only for the reasons that people compared Bush to a monkey – because his policies seem to fly in the face of common sense and reason.