A friend sent me a link to an article written by Dennis Prager titled "From The Great-Man Theory to Dead White-Male-Criticism Theory".  As I was reading this article I was convinced that most people fall into one of four categories when it comes to race and racism in America. While this isn't a rigid theory, I think it will start a conversation.

The first group of people are "racial-realist": they acknowledge the progress made in areas concerning racial equality, but realize discrimination is still a part of life for some. They tend to support solutions to racial issues through the use of political and social power. Often they have a sensitivity to victims of discrimination and are more likely to be activists.

The second group are "hyper-racialist": members of this group have the ability to find racism in every aspect of life; any situation can be viewed through a hyper-racial lens. Tragically, many of the underlying systemic socioeconomic causes of their problems are overlooked in lieu of the easier knee jerk charge of racism. Hyper-racialist are the hypochondriacs weakening the claims of discrimination by those with legitimate grievances.

The third school is comprised of people who are "racially-indifferent": they work and live in enclaves where the majority of their interactions are with people of similar racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. Their indifference isn't built on apathy, but comes from being disconnected from the realities of being a minority in America. Quiet forms of racism go unnoticed by many in this group because they don't hear the proverbial dog whistles.

The last group are "race-negators": they are invested in the idea that we live in a post-racial America. They acknowledge the racism in our past, but completely disregard racism as a serious issues in our time. 21st century suffering in minority communities is often blamed on a lack of Protestant morality and work ethic. This ideology is necessary to maintain the illusion of an egalitarian society in which merit outranks privilege. Mr. Prager's analysis leads me to believe he falls into this category.

His article starts out contrasting the nostalgic way older Americans look at paintings of the founding fathers versus the way (he feels) academia and younger Americans look at them. This is Dennis Prager in his own words:

When Americans over the age of, let us say, 45 look at any of the iconic paintings of America’s Founders — the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the signing of the Constitution, George Washington crossing the Delaware, any of the individual portraits of the Founders — what do they see? They see great men founding a great country. If you ask many recent college graduates what they see when they look at these paintings, the chances are that it is something entirely different. They are apt to see rich, white males who are not great and who did not found a great country. And for many, it is worse than that. These men are not only not great; they are morally quite flawed in that they were slave holders, or at least founded a country based on slavery. Moreover, they were not only all racists — they were all sexists, who restricted the vote to males. And they were rich men who were primarily concerned with protecting their wealth, which is why they restricted the vote to landowners.

Mr. Prager is trapped inside of a black hole that doesn't allow him to question or dismiss the rigidity of his own beliefs, nor does it allow any information contrary to his beliefs to filter in and challenge him. He isn't alone; many "race-negators" have an overly simplistic worldview. The fact that the very claims he's ridiculing academia for discussing are historically accurate is of no consequence to him. Instead of working through the duality to find a synthesis, he pretends one doesn't exist. Sadly, this is what passes for cultural analysis. He offers some of the least sophisticated and intellectually dishonest arguments about culture and race. It's possible to look at the founding fathers and appreciate their courage and brilliance, while simultaneously acknowledging the cowardly and immoral way they subjugated women and blacks. Both things are true and worthy of discussion.