Critical race theory is like a corrosive acid. If it is not stopped, if people don’t stand up to it and oppose it completely and without any fear or compromise, it will destroy absolutely everything.

The race grifters have come after completely innocuous cultural symbols before, searching for and inventing increasingly labyrinthine and ridiculous justifications for declaring them “racist” and scrubbing them from society.

But now, they’re coming after birds and their names.

Apparently, Birds Are Racist Now

Bachman’s sparrow and Wallace’s fruit dove should like completely harmless and innocent little creatures. After all, they’re just little birds, and they look pretty cute. But our race grifting industry is so saturated and people are so desperate to search for “causes” to fight for that it has recently been decided that these little birds are racist.

Wallace’s fruit dove, for example, is one of six birds named after Alfred Russel Wallace, the British naturalist and contemporary of Charles Darwin who, along with Darwin, was the co-discoverer of the theory of evolution.

And why is this bad? Well, Wallace’s writings, which ranged over topics as diverse as biology, anthropology, politics, natural theology and spiritualism — which was in vogue among late 19th century British intellectuals — included quite a few uses of the “N” word.

J. Drew Lanham, a black ornithologist, wants us all to know that he strongly objects to all of this. Further, he tells us that, somehow, “Conservation has been driven by white patriarchy.”

Hearing half-baked opinions like this, one cannot help wonder if the brains of people like Lanham are simply on autopilot. It’s become more than clear by now that if you throw around terms like “white supremacy” and “patriarchy” and stick them into contexts where they don’t belong, you will win yourself social brownie points. Apparently, Lanham is more concerned about this than he is about simply studying birds.

Lanham also complains that the names given to many animals have historically been mistranscriptions that white explorers and scientists have made for names that black or Native American people had already given to the animals in question. Presumably, he regards this as a form of “cultural appropriation.”

But if many black and Native American peoples did not even have written languages at the time that Europeans encountered them — and many didn’t — then it’s difficult to see what exactly is supposed to be wrong with this decision. The animals had to be named somehow, after all. Again, one wonders whether Lanham is just putting his brain on autopilot, signaling mindlessly to his elite peers and looking for reasons to complain.

Of course, almost everyone in Europe had anti-black racial opinions during Wallace’s time. The sort of racial attitudes that Wallace and his contemporaries had toward black people were the cultural norm back then, just as the sort of racial attitudes toward white people that critical race theory has inspired are the cultural norm today among fashionable intellectuals.

Just as few among the Victorian elite had the courage and foresight to question the dominant anti-black racial opinions of their time, so few among our academic elite have the courage and foresight to question the dominant anti-white racial opinions of our time.

Some things never change.