Sometime during the last few decades or so, Modern Liberals (as opposed to Classic Liberals) decided it was a contest: who was the most aggrieved party, by social subdivision? Prior to this time period, it was an easy answer—Black Americans. And rightfully so, as pre-1970, laws and systems in the US were decidedly anti-Black. The Civil Rights Movement was successful in correctly adjusting ‘the System’ to a better level of fairness. Affirmative Action in hiring, loan processing, and college admissions attempted to right a wrong. Of course, there will always be individual racists, but they do not have a major impact on most people—they are allowed to go ignorantly about their own, isolated way. And the ethics of trading one discrimination for another will always stir up an argument. But to argue that life was as bad or unfair to Black Americans in the 2000s vs the 1960s is a stretch most folks will not attempt. But what of other minorities? Women? Gay? Trans (relatively recent)? Disabled? How do each of the subdivisions rank? What about cross-overs? What happens when the inevitable occurs, when one subdivision has a complaint against another? Does the whole silly game collapse? Let’s dig.
Pre-Civil Rights, Blacks in the US were treated terribly, even post-Slavery. Their economic and social opportunities were severely limited. They had their own sub-US: banks, churches, stores, colleges, even drinking fountains. Separate-but-equal was the nonsensical theme of the day. Desegregation, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, along with a major societal shift, ended most of the inequities. In fact, other than encountering old-school individuals, most Blacks born since 1970 have likely never known the deep-set racist attitudes their parents lived with. Also note: racism and the like are not a creation or feature unique to the United States. Heck, parts of Northern Africa still actively sell African Blacks into slavery! It’s just that, in the US, those voices demanding change are heard, and usually acted upon. 2000+ US is a different world. There are no restrictions on Black Americans (or anyone else) when it comes to business start-ups, college admissions, home ownership, cross-racial marriage, or any of the forbidden activities of the past. Black millionaires are not rare. Black billionaires are only as rare as billionaires in general. And that is as it should be, nearly everyone agrees. White Supremacists, as rare as they are, are looked down upon by society as the ignorant, foolish people they are. 100% erased? Likely never. But a major threat to Black America, and their lives or opportunities? Nearly nonexistent.
Women in the US have followed a similar path of that of Black Americans, just on a different timeline. Prior to 1920, women could not vote. The 19th Amendment solved that shortcoming. But the societal view back then, until the mid-1960s or so, was a male-dominated world. Women were simply viewed as weaker, second-tier citizens, suitable for housework, teaching, nursing, and light-duty professions. It was rare that women attended college, and even more rare to hold secondary degrees. Once again, society shifted. Women now are more likely to attend college than men, and the majority of secondary degrees confirmed in the last few years are to women. Women-owned businesses are as successful as any other. Title 9 legislation in 1972 equalized college funding for women’s athletics, which corrected an age-old shortfall. While professional women’s sports have not achieved similar success as men’s, there are notable gains: women’s soccer is quite popular, and prize money for women’s golf and tennis are approaching, if not equaling, men’s. Work to go? Certainly. But the economic gap, after factoring in career choice, hours worked, etc., is almost gone, in most industries.
Gay and transsexual inequalities are harder to pinpoint, since those are personal traits, not entirely immediately visible. While there are flamboyantly gay folks, it is not a given—by observation, one simply cannot pinpoint another person’s sexual behaviors. In many cases, that behavior is not even consistent to the individual, as some folks change their attractions over time (both directions). But most assuredly, even as late as the 1970s, laws were on the books prohibiting homosexual behavior—public and private. Civil unions and marriages are current events, not historical. And the rights and privileges heterosexual couples have (home ownership and borrowing, insurance, tax advantages and disadvantages, etc.) were denied homosexual couples, until very recently. Society has again adjusted—what was once rare and disdained is now commonplace and (mostly) accepted. One can hardly view a TV or movie production without gay or trans character representation—certainly a higher percentage than the population as a whole.
Disabled folks pose their own unique problems. Most of their issues deal with access and treatment. Try rolling a wheelchair up steps, or over old-school curbs. And many non-handicapped folks simply are uncomfortable around handicapped–virtually anyone that they deem ‘non-normal’. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was an attempt to rectify these systematic issues. True effort has occurred, especially for access to areas via ramps and elevators, along with special compensations to ease usage of ATMs, drive-thrus, etc.
The above is a very long intro into my real topic: political grievances. Modern Liberals have been ‘championing’ minority rights, overcoming minority ‘suppression’, real and imagined. The Liberals seem to dwell on such things more than everyone else, endorsing a victim mentality that somehow requires their empathy. If all minorities were treated exactly as the public at large, in all situations, you’d think Liberals would be happy and content! Don’t be foolish! Liberals exist ONLY to represent one aggrieved minority or another! If everyone is equal, they are unemployed! The current push is not for equality, but to give these subdivisions of society PREFERRED status, as if they should be rewarded for their inclusion into their applicable minority sector. Their particular personal minority status should be celebrated and elevated, not just equal to everyone else!
And that is where the current troubles have arisen: what happens when one minority group’s ‘struggles’ collide with another? Who has higher standing in the Grievance Olympics? Example: Liberals are pushing for transsexual women (biological males that identify as women) to participate in formerly women’s sports. The result? The trans athletes are DOMINATING women’s sports, to the point of setting records in track, wrestling, weightlifting, etc. They are literally pushing women out of women’s sports. Biological women are frustrated to the point of non-participation, losing out on those Title 9 college scholarship opportunities. Apparently, trans folks are a higher level of aggrieved than women, who, while still a minority, are a lower priority. In the Liberal’s view, one cannot question the views of minorities—that would be disenfranchising and bigotry of the highest order! But what happens when one minority’s actions damage another minority group? Who resolves such disputes? Why, Liberals, of course!
Apparently, the goal is to find an individual that applies to ALL minority statuses—find a handicapped, trans of color, preferably a Native American Indian, who is left-handed. This person should be the end-all of all political thought—who could question such a person without some level of bigotry? Elections would then be obsolete! We live in interesting times, that’s for sure.
