I was watching television when I caught an interesting line. It was a bit of a throw away bit of dialogue, but it made me realize what is so bizarre about liberal claims concerning race and culture. The line? "You can't believe you're to blame for everything unless you believe you are all powerful." I doubt very much the writers had anything political in mind when they wrote it, but it really does give quite an insight into the liberal, especially the academic liberal mind.

You see, traditional conservatives, from the ancient Greek traditionalist Athenians, through the Whigs in England, to modern libertarians and some Republicans, never really argued that European culture was superior in all ways to all other cultures. They may have argued that it produced superior results as a whole, but they were also more than happy to import good ideas form other cultures. in fact, that was one of the reasons for the success of Europeans, from Herodotus, the "first tourist in history" through the Romans, the most successful borrowers of history, to the Renaissance plundering of Iberian Arab culture, to the Enlightenment fascination with anything and everything, Europeans have been the one group which has lacked the visceral xenophobia which characterizes almost all of human history. It is why there was never a European practice close to the homicidal closure that Japan enacted between the first  Portuguese  envoys and the forced opening of the island in the 19th century. It is also why such isolationist steps, such as those enacted by the Soviet Union, or suggested in Plato's Laws, sound so strange to Europeans. We are an open culture, curious about others, and more than willing to adopt good ideas from others.

Europeans have also been less open to claims of racial supremacy than other states. Granted, we have had our racist eras, just as we have had our nativist and xenophobic periods. Still for Europe, they were phases, not a constant state as they were for most of the world. Europe has been one of the few regions to never have longstanding racial and ethnic wars. In fact, the proof is really in our one exception. The sort of tribal warfare that characterizes so much of the world does exist in one region of Europe, in the Balkans. However, while int he rest of the world that sort of tribalism would seem so ordinary that ti would not be noteworthy, in Europe it is unusual enough that it inspired the word "balkanization", which very aptly describes the state of most non-European cultures.

What makes all this important is that liberals, specifically academic liberals, tend to describe Europeans in terms that match nothing in our experience. According to these liberals, Europeans are racist, cultural supremacists who are responsible for most or all of the ills of the modern world. Rather than tourists, curious about the world,. open to new ideas, they are portrayed as barbarians, spreading out across the world destroying cultures and coercing them to adopt our ways.

It never made much sense to me. I normally ascribed it to the left wing tendency to blame Europeans, as well as their habit of elevating the primitive and foreign over the developed and local, but I think I may have been wrong in one regard. Yes, they do trot this out to run down western culture using such blame to set the stage for the reshaping of that culture into something they find more appealing (just as they use "ethical relativism" for the same purpose), but there is also another motive, one they would not likely admit, but one which is clear, nonetheless.

You see, liberals really do think less of those non-European cultures. They would never admit as much, but as the quote says, how could Europeans do so much harm unless they really were all powerful? Nor is this the only proof, we have only to look at how they handle other groups to see more evidence. For example, the left tends to forgive any barbarous behavior on the part of non-western cultures, treating them as children, simply unable to control their emotions. While Christians who rioted would be thoroughly dressed down by the left, Moslem rioters are forgiven as they "just can't help it". Likewise, the left tends to treat other cultures as primitive barbarians in the political sense. Just listen to their arguments about the Iraqis not being "ready" for democracy to get an example. Apparently, to the mind of the leftist, only white Europeans can handle democracy. Finally, look at how they handle minorities within our own nation. According to those on the left, no minority citizen can succeed without government help. Even after forty years of full legal equality, minorities are still simply unable to compete. And when they do succeed, rather than accepting that as the normal outcome of human activity, the left has to arrange a patronizing little celebration, as if minority success were so rare it needs to be lauded.

Some will no doubt disagree, but I ask them to tell me where I am wrong. What has the left done that does not scream patronization, condescension, even outright racism? If we set aside the cultural belief that the right is racist and the left enlightened and look solely at their words and deeds, which side appears to be engaged almost exclusively in racist acts? And which side consistently sets aside race and judges each according to the content of their character?

POSTSCRIPT

And interesting proof is the use of racial epithets. I have yet to hear a mainstream Republican use anything approaching a racial slur. Yet those on the left have no problem challenging the "authenticity" of minorities who do not join their cause. Think of the many slurs leveled at Powell, Rice, Thomas, Keyes, and so on. The left has no problem with racism provided it is used only against conservative members of minorities.

A similar pattern can be seen in their treatment of women. Women deserve every consideration, are capable of everything men can do, should be given the benefit of the doubt, should be assumed to be capable of having a career and family... Unless they are conservative. Then Governor Palin is asked if she can be VP when she has a disabled child at home. Not to mention the absurd charges, in mainstream Democrat circles, that she was not truly pregnant and was concealing the birth of an illegitimate grand child. Had anything close happened to a Democrat running for office, the left would have been rioting. However, when it is criticism of a woman on the right, their true colors show. They don't truly believe all women are capable, just those in the upper ranks of the left. Again, their supposed understanding is more about votes than any sincere belief. In fact, judging from their comments, they are the individuals whose views match their caricature "sexist", not anyone on the right.

Yet another interesting parallel is the glee the left exhibits in "outing" Republicans. For a group supposedly sensitive to homosexuality, they sound like the most obnoxious rabble rouser when they insult Republicans who are supposedly covert homosexuals. Should they not be showing sensitivity? Calling for understanding? Instead they engage in juvenile gay jokes or toss out insults that would be called homophobic had they come from the right. For all their supposed understanding, it appears their love of homosexuals begins and ends at the ballot box, much like their love of minorities.