If It Were Any Other Race...

Put any other racial, ethnic, or liberal religious group in this video and it would be bigotry beyond belief--but slamming white people is OK:

The University of Minnesota - Duluth (UMD) is now sponsoring an ad-campaign designed to achieve "racial justice" by raising awareness of "white privilege."

The project disseminates its message, that "society was setup for us [whites]" and as such is "unfair," through an aggressive campaign of online videos, billboards, and lectures. The ads feature a number of Caucasians confessing their guilt for the supposed "privilege" that comes along with their fair features.

WATCH BELOW: Group says it is "unfair" to be white

I've never been one to believe in "white privilege".  The race pimps will say "of course you haven't, you're white!" but you should give me a little more credit than that for being a thinking person.

These lectures were publicly endorsed by university Chancellor Lendley Black. Black sent a message to the campus community in April describing his effort to "create an inclusive campus climate for all" through providing "support and... leadership to the Un-Fair Campaign."

How is it inclusive for all if I'm supposed to feel bad for who and what I am?  I can't control being white, any more than people can control being female or being gay, but I alone am supposed to feel guilty for something I cannot control.

What ever happened to judging people not by the color of their skin, but on the content of their character?

In this post from almost 7 years ago I argue the lack of logic in these race-based ideas of who's better than whom:

Seems to me that Delpit believes that a student's own "culture", for lack of a better term, is superior to the "culture of power", which would most likely be the dominant societal culture in which that child lives! In other words, the child should learn a few rules so that he or she can participate in that culture, but that doing so should be treated as a game to be played. I don't understand how Delpit can logically demand that society change to accommodate those from outside it, while at the same time saying that those outsiders should treat their surrounding society's culture as anything more than a game to be played, a hindrance. Such views seem to be the norm when people try to speak for the underrepresented, and such a belief structure belies not a desire for acceptance, but a desire for dominance--I believe that Delpit would, if she could, reverse the roles of the underrepresented and the dominant cultures, and would have no difficulty explaining why the new dominant culture should stay where it is and the new subordinate (white middle-class) culture should adapt to it. These belief structures are very self-serving and are based on emotion, not logic.

In that same post I stated the following:

So now we're back to social justice. For those on the left, it always comes back to this concept of social justice. Just to review, my post from earlier this month on the topic of social justice included this quote:

By the way, there's a huge difference between "justice" (government acts to ensure equal treatment before the law) and "social justice" (government acts to redistribute resources to those it feels are more deserving—and more likely to vote for said government).

While obviously not perfect, we've come a long way in this country towards the definition given above for "justice". The eulogies on the recent passing of Rosa Parks demonstrate how far we've come in only 50 years. I fear, though, those who would use the power of government to reengineer society to satisfy those it determines are "more deserving".

That the ad campaign is happening at a university is a travesty.