Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentOther - Politics & Government · 1 decade ago

Why is fascism and racism blamed on the Right or conservatives?

Fascism or Nationalist Socialism was a left wing party in Germany. They believed in the power and supremacy of the State over that of the individual. They were a form of Socialism, an idea always associated with liberals or the Left wing.

The Progressive movement of the 1900s not only pushed an agenda that was racist, but their ability to sell the idea that government could and should intrude on and regulate private business dealings made it possible for the Jim Crow laws to be passed. Those racist laws were passed and enforced by Democrats.

The left believes in the group or society over the individual. Conservatives, especially the Libertarians believe in the opposite. The greatest evils of the last century and of today are perpetrated by people in power who believed they are doing what was for the greater good of humanity.

6 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    That's a fair question. You go to far left or too far right...you end up in the same place...totalitarianism land....not a good place to be.

  • 1 decade ago

    it's not a matter of left or right- it's a problem rooted in extremism. any government that tells its people when to jump and how high to jump is always asking for trouble. extremists on both sides of the aisle make different decisions, but for the same reasons- "for the greater good of humanity".

    btw, democrats and republicans in the old days were the opposite of what they are now. back in the day (about 75 years ago), democrats were known as conservative and were nicknamed "The Party of the Old South (read: Confederacy)". meanwhile, the republicans were "Those Radical Yanks".

    funny, huh?

    case and point: it's not the name of the party, it's the actions of the party. when you vote, vote for the person and not the party.

    Source(s): apathetic and Libertarian (means pro-individualism except at the expense of others- you might want to check the philosophy out- just saying b/c it sounds like your cup of tea, i don't know- i'm not trying to "convert" you or anything.) ^_^
  • 1 decade ago

    If that was true, then why is it the republicans who are taking away peoples' right to freedoms like privacy in the name of national security? Your arguments are ridiculous. The greatest evils are perpetrated by people who believe they are doing good... so what does that mean? We should start listening to people who believe they are doing evil? Liberals support inalienable human rights to a far greater degree than conservatives. Ask any republican redneck from Mississippi what he thinks of Jews and blacks and you'll see what a Conservative racist agenda looks like.

  • 1 decade ago

    The Democrats and their allies on the radical left have waged a war of freedom suppression since the Clinton era.

    If they continue? Sooner or later the American people will respond not with their votes but with their bullets.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    the left look in the mirror and do not like what they see...those that are wrong blame others for the same thing they do... a liberal trait.

  • 1 decade ago

    Evolutionary racism

    by Carl Wieland

    The sinful desire to dominate, reject, ignore or mistreat others for one’s own particular motives has never required much excuse. However, Darwin gave it a tremendous impetus, as has been shown before by both evolutionist and creationist writers. An unusual book helps document the links between evolutionary thinking and an upsurge in racism in Australian colonial history.

    The book is called Aborigines in White Australia: A Documentary History of the Attitudes Affecting Official Policy and the Australian Aborigine 1697–1973.1 Apart from a few introductory/editorial comments, it consists largely of substantial excerpts from documents as varied as parliamentary transcripts, court records, letters to editors, anthropological reports, and so forth.

    Increase in brutality

    Far from showing a progressive enlightenment as time goes on, one can see a distinct change for the worse after 1859, with a marked increase in callousness, ill-treatment and brutality towards Aborigines being evident in official attitudes. As the book’s editor writes:

    ‘In 1859 Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species popularized the notion of biological (and therefore social) evolution. Scholars began to discuss civilization as a unilinear process with races able to ascend or descend a graduated scale. The European was … the “fittest to survive” … [The Aboriginal] was doomed to die out according to a “natural law”, like the dodo and the dinosaur. This theory, supported by the facts at hand [i.e. that Aborigines were dying out, which was due to ill-treatment and disease — C.W.] continued to be quoted until well into the twentieth century when it was noticed that the dark-skinned race was multiplying. Until that time it could be used to justify neglect and murder.’

    In the transcript of an interrogation of a policeman during a Royal Commission of inquiry in 1861 (p. 83), we read concerning the use of force against tribal Aborigines:

    ‘And if we did not punish the blacks they would look upon it as a confession of weakness?’

    ‘Yes, that is exactly my opinion.’

    ‘It is a question as to which is the strongest race — if we submit to them they would despise us for it?’

    ‘Yes …’

    The influence of evolutionary thinking can also be seen in a transcript on page 100. The writer, also author of an 1888 book, is justifying the killing of Aborigines in the State of Victoria. He writes:

    ‘As to the ethics of the question, there can be drawn no final conclusion.’

    He says that this is because it is

    ‘a question of temperament; to the sentimental it is undoubtedly an iniquity; to the practical it represents a distinct step in human progress, involving the sacrifice of a few thousands of an inferior race. … But the fact is that mankind, as a race, cannot choose to act solely as moral beings. They are governed by animal laws which urge them blindly forward upon tracks they scarce can choose for themselves.’

    In other words, he is justifying ‘iniquity’ (another word for sin) by appealing to the ‘animal laws’ of the evolutionary struggle for survival. Opposition can be dismissed as ‘sentimental’ — lacking understanding of such ‘natural laws’.

    On page 96, someone also writing in an 1880 newspaper said:

    ‘Nothing that we can do will alter the inscrutable and withal immutable laws which direct our progress on this globe. By these laws the native races of Australia were doomed on the advent of the white man, and the only thing left for us to do is to assist in carrying them out [i.e. helping the “laws” of evolution by hastening the Aborigines’ doom — C.W.] with as little cruelty as possible … We must rule the blacks by fear … ’.

    These immutable ‘laws of evolution’ have, of course, always been a complete fiction. The continuing social tension surrounding Aboriginal issues is, in large part, a legacy of these past evils.

    Church backdown on creation

    Many genuine Australian Christians and church institutions, though occasionally somewhat patronizing, seem to have tried to protect Aborigines from the full brunt of the many inhumanities sanctioned by evolutionary thinking. However, like today, most church leaders and institutions compromised in some form or another with this new Darwinian ‘science’.

    Virtually no Christian voice did what was required — to affirm boldly the real history of man as given in the Bible. To stress that we all go back only a few thousand years, to Noah’s family, would have refuted Darwinian racism. It would have anticipated the findings of modern genetics, that we are all biologically extremely close. It would also have given a completely different perspective on Aboriginal status and culture — for example, it would have been seen as no surprise that they already had many stories of their own about the Flood, and some about Babel. What a dramatically different starting point for missionary outreach — reaching your relatives, not inferior ‘savages’!

    The false belief system of evolution has been used since its inception to dull people to the moral absolutes of Scripture, whether justifying Nazism, Stalinism, the abortion holocaust, indifference to starvation in Africa, or the maltreatment of indigenous people.

    God’s Word has always stated that He has ‘made of one blood [i.e. from one man, Adam] all nations of men’ (Acts 17:26, cf. 1 Cor. 15:45). The answer to racism is in Genesis, which tells us that all people are closely related.

    Official Crimes

    We have already documented1 the murderous trade in body parts to northern hemisphere museums, based on Darwin’s teaching that indigenous Australians were living ‘missing links’. Early atrocities against Aborigines (which were also often ‘justified’ by pre-Darwinian evolutionary ideas) frequently brought swift retribution from the authorities. But after Darwin’s work appeared, such horrors, of all types, were much more often officially sanctioned.

    A letter-writer to a newspaper in 1880, incensed by the treatment of his fellow man, stated:

    ‘This, in plain language, is how we deal with the aborigines: On occupying new territory the aboriginal inhabitants are treated exactly in the same way as the wild beasts or birds the settlers may find there. Their lives and their property, the nets, canoes, and weapons which represent as much labor to them as the stock and buildings of the white settler, are held by the Europeans as being at their absolute disposal. Their goods are taken, their children forcibly stolen, their women carried away, entirely at the caprice of white men. The least show of resistance is answered by a rifle bullet … [those] who fancied the amusement have murdered, ravished, and robbed the blacks without let or hindrance. Not only have they been unchecked, but the Government of the colony has been always at hand to save them from the consequences of their crime.’2

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.