Let’s apply reason, not political ideology, to the latest fustercluck over race and politics. Former President Jimmy Carter and several other dreaded “liberals” got fed up with signs comparing President Obama to apes, calling him a lyin’ African instead of an African lion, drawing Hitler-type mustaches on photos of the president, claiming he’s a Kenyan Muslim, etc. Carter and others suggested race-baiting may play a part.

So, predictably, Brian Sweeney, Jr. and others denied race has anything to do with hatred of and hostility for the president. So, now we have yet another round of shouting, name-calling, finger-pointing and politics as usual.

I wonder if I may interrupt all the political posturing with some old-fashioned use of brain power, reasoning, if that’s not too subversive these days.

First, let’s face the fact that human motivation is complex. We humans often do things, not just for one reason only, but for many different reasons. Several examples may suffice. People as diverse as Howard Zinn, author of a “People’s History of the United States,” and poet Toni Morrison have pointed out that what we call “racism” today originated as an economic construct. Those in power as our country began to emerge from a colony to an independent nation, solidified their power by convincing poor whites that their plight originated, not from oppression by the rich, but by poor blacks. That confirms my experience, even from my own family and the high school students I taught in New York and Fairbanks, that people who don’t like themselves often express the most contempt for people of color; apparently, they tell themselves that as bad as they themselves are, they’re not as bad as blacks, Hispanics, Natives, etc.

A couple of Americans of Japanese descent, George Takei, the actor best known for his role as Lieutenant Sulu on the original “Star Trek” television show, and Fairbanksan Ron Inouye, both have told me that the US government removed Americans of Japanese descent from their homes during World War II primarily out of greed. Takei and Inouye said race was a tool for stealing the property of fellow Americans.

I’ve heard from several sources that George Wallace, that icon of racism, campaigned on a platform of segregation now and segregation forever, not because he hated blacks but because that posture would get him elected Governor of Alabama. When the racial climate changed in the 1970s, so did Wallace. He started courting black voters as their friend.

When Ronald Reagan announced his run for the presidency, he chose as his venue Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of the murders of three civil rights leaders in the early 1960s. Was Reagan motivated to do that because he hated blacks or because he courted support from racists in what had been the Democratic “solid south?”

I’m also told by several sources the Belgians were able to colonize what is now Rwanda by separating the Hutus and Tutsis and treating one group favorably over another.

The same with the Middle East. Several historians tell me the Brits methodically separated Jews from Muslims in the early 20th century.

(I’m not going to methodically provide sources for all the above. If you doubt what I wrote, go ahead and Google. If you can’t find sources, go ahead and tell me and I will do the research.)

What do all these examples have in common? They illustrate the ancient Roman tactic of divide and conquer. To exercise power and control of other peoples, you invent ways to set them against each other.

Recent advances in the science of genetics find that black Africans and whites in Colorado may have more in common genetically than blacks in Zimbabwe and blacks in Mali. Barack Obama, New York Yankee infielder Derek Jeter and former Alaska basketball great Trajan Langdon are no more black men than white men. Calling them black is an artificial distinction with zero basis in genetics.

So why have George Wallace, the Belgians, greedy World War II-era Americans, Ku Klux Klanners, British Middle East colonizers, slave traders, and political posturers like Al Sharpton, Ronald Reagan and our own Brian Sweeney, Jr. appealed to those who would classify human beings according to their ethnicity? Obviously, because they think they can gain something from it.

Brian missed the point when he accused me of “playing the race card” for pointing out documented cases of voter suppression of blacks in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Did those election officials who engaged in such activities do so because of hatred for blacks? I doubt it. They recognized, as Dr. Sweeney himself has admitted, that as much as 90% of blacks support Democrats; therefore, suppressing black votes helps Republicans get “elected.” I already cited sources in a previous blog.

Since we live in a free country, those in power cannot act like Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin or Robert Mugabe and rule by force alone. In the USA, those in power stay there by manipulating us. And we let them do that to us because of some psychic reward, according to Thomas Frank, who wrote “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” In my view, Frank makes a convincing argument that in what he cites as the poorest county in America, one in Kansas, the poor vote against their own economic interests because the politicians pose as opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage even as they steal from their own supporters. Now, if you have a better explanation than Frank’s, go ahead and make your case.

And, while you’re at it, explain this one to me: If Brian or I wear something green next March 17 to celebrate our Irish ancestry, I doubt anyone will call us racist. Or if local columnist Elise Patkotak shares with us her experiences with her Italian-American family, I doubt anyone will accuse Elise of being un-American and “divisive.” But for some reason, if a black person calls himself an African American or a judge refers to La Raza, he and she run the risk of being labeled divisive and racist.

Now, we come to that fascinating specimen, Brian Sweeney, Jr. He doesn’t reside in the poorest county in the US (Alaska doesn’t have counties, anyway) and as a gastroenterologist he probably is not one of the poorest Americans. As far as I can tell, Brian does not support candidates simply for claiming they oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. Yet, for some reason, Brian appears so very eager to trade in reason for the chance to pose as an absurd Archie Bunker clone.

In a recent blog, Brian argued, with some cogency, that opposing President Obama’s policies does not make a person a racist who hates blacks. Yet, he argues that opposing aid to Israel makes a person an anti-Semitic isolationist who hates Israel. When he and I sat across from each other several weeks ago, Brian acknowledged Arabs are also Semites. But he offers as an excuse that most people don’t consider Arabs Semites; so, apparently hating Arabs is not anti-Semitic. I can’t figure that one out; maybe Brian’s iconic Mr. Spock can explain the logic. Even Jonah Goldberg, not known as a flaming liberal, admitted in Saturday’s newspaper column that opposing Middle East policy doesn’t make one anti-Semitic. If a Goldberg can admit that, why can't a Sweeney?

In true Archie Bunker-fashion, Brian lumps all Muslims together when he claims the very people driven from their ancestral homes in Palestine were jumping up and down with joy at news of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Does Brian, trained for years in the science of medicine, offer any evidence of any survey of Palestinians driven from their homes who said they supported the terrorist attacks? Did Brian have a camera in Palestine or send anyone to Palestine with a camera on 9/12/2001? If so, how could they catch a plane on that date when the rest of us couldn’t? Or is Brian secretly a Saudi Arabian buddy of the Bushes? We laugh at Archie Bunker when he says blacks drive Cadillacs, live on welfare, commit crimes, and eat watermelon and Jews are shyster lawyers. So why shouldn’t we laugh at 21st century Archie Bunkers who claim Arabs and Muslims either are terrorists or support terrorists?

Brian yelps “socialism” when government confiscates his money and distributes it to the poor in our own country, but, without a peep, Brian lets government confiscate his money and distributes it to other countries, even those with a history of attacking us. Brian says the private sector works better than government but he won’t put his money where his mouth is and send his permanent fund dividend to Israel. Brian keeps calling me an isolationist who hates Israel but provides zero evidence for his conclusion. If we can disagree with the president’s actions and not be a racist who hates blacks, why can’t we disagree with a country’s actions and not be an isolationist racist who hates that country? Brian won’t answer that question. Name-calling is a lot easier.

To his credit, Brian admits he engages in political posturing to express his hostility towards those he considers “liberals” or “leftists.” I think he’s smart enough to understand that the role of government should be to protect Americans, not from themselves, but from outside forces they can’t control. And I think he would not deny that the role of government in real life is to transfer wealth from you, Brian and me to the special interests that pay politicians to do that for them. And if we say stop stealing from me, those in power will accuse us of “class warfare.”

Some critics have accused me—with some justification—of being too long-winded and too scattered in my blogs. So, in the interests of clarity and coherence, let me sum up this long essay:

Colonizers grab and hold onto power by dividing and conquering. To do that, they manipulate their prey by convincing them their real enemies are their fellow prey, not the colonizers. That still goes on in the richest country in history. They convince us to classify others by race, by political ideology, by religion and by economic class so “we” can oppose “them.”

I’ve tried in this essay to point out whether we are Klanners or Sharptons, Hutus or Tutsis, 20th century Jews or Arabs, Irish Americans or Japanese Americans, “liberals” or “conservatives,” Christians or Muslims, gay or straight, pro-choice or anti-abortion, we are the prey. The more we let ourselves be manipulated into viewing the world exclusively in black-and-white terms, us vs. them, the more those who divide and conquer us laugh at us all the way to the bank, after, of course, we’ve gone broke bailing it out.