|American Renaissance magazine|
|Vol. 12, No. 7||July 2001|
Biblical law respects boundaries of race and nation
In the September 1997 issue of AR there was a debate on whether Christianity is at least partly to blame for the demise of Western Civilization and the suicidal course being pursued by Western peoples. Both positions were ably argued, and on the whole I had to agree that the key to the controversy was a distinction between historical Christianity and contemporary Christianity. As Michael W. Masters (“How Christianity Harms the Race”) acknowledged implicitly and Victor Craig (“Defense of the Faith”) acknowledged explicitly, the two are not the same; and, as Mr. Craig argued persuasively, historical Christianity has not been indifferent to the fate of the European peoples.
The situation today is quite different. Whether Catholic or Protestant, conservative or liberal, all Western churches have embraced leftist dogmas on questions of nationality and race. The only difference appears to be that the more liberal churches openly support the multicultural and anti-white agenda, while the conservative churches ignore it. Of course, ignoring an agenda that pervades everything from politics to advertising is a form of tacit acceptance. The question is not whether Western churches are betraying their predominantly white congregations; they are. The question is whether they have doctrinal justification to do so.
It would be hard to overestimate the extent to which churches have surrendered to the leftist racial world view. Two years ago, the Pope said this about the inundation of Western countries by Third-World “refugees:” “These foreigners are above all our brothers, and no one should be excepted for reasons of race and religion.” Of course, one could argue that race and religion are the two most important reasons to prevent foreigners from settling in one’s homeland. A common race is the foundation of any true nation, while a common religion is the foundation of a common moral code.
Leaving aside the race question for a moment, what kind of insanity has gripped the Catholic hierarchy that it would maintain that a Christian country should not keep out non-Christians? Whatever the answer, Protestant churches in Northern Europe and North America suffer a similar affliction. While liberal Protestants prate about the endless benefits of “diversity,” conservative Protestants boast they will convert the newcomers. So lost have they become in the mists of political correctness, so effeminate has become their Christianity, they do not realize the erection of mosques, Hindu temples, and Buddhist shrines in the formerly Christian lands of the West is not a sign of progress in world evangelism but is terrible regress and defeat.
If the children of these pagan newcomers are, indeed, to be converted from the religions of their parents the contest will be between evangelicals and hedonistic liberals. Is there any doubt that the latter will sweep the field? These children’s parents came here to enjoy the good life and escape the challenges of building up their own nations. Their children will inherit this materialistic and self-seeking orientation. Christians can boast all they want about tolerance and love of foreigners, but immigration is only further marginalizing Christianity in our culture.
Some Christian leaders have been so bold as to call on the Western peoples to commit racial suicide so as to make the newcomers feel more welcome. Billy Graham himself recently told white Christians they had a moral duty to foster total racial integration “in our homes, in our worship services, even in our marriages.” Of course, if every young European in the world were to take a non-European wife or husband, the European people would cease to exist in just one generation.
|It would be hard to overestimate the extent to which churches have surrendered to the leftist world view.|
As far as I know, not a single Christian leader condemned, or even criticized, Billy Graham’s call for white extinction as a solution to the race problem. Billy Graham’s position is similar to that of the former Republican congressman from Southern California, Robert Dornan, who said before a USA Today editorial board meeting: “I want to see America stay a nation of immigrants, and if we lose our Northern European stock — your coloring and mine, blue eyes and fair hair — tough! So what if 5,000 years from now we’re all going to have a golden tan ... We’re all going to be blended together because of travel, and because of the information highway.” On the race and nationality questions the churches are following the lead of the dominant secular culture, not the other way around.
While few evangelical leaders are as bold as Rev. Graham, many come close. The former director of the Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed, has been particularly eager for the “Christian Right” to support the racial agenda of the Secular Left. At the first Congress of Racial Justice and Reconciliation, held in Washington, DC, in May 1997, Mr. Reed agreed that racial “injustice” was widespread in bank loans, housing, inner-city funding, and in prison sentences. He also agreed there had been a white racist conspiracy to burn black churches. (Readers of AR know that this “conspiracy” was a hoax.) The Christian Coalition launched something called the Samaritan Project, to help rebuild black churches.
Nor should it be forgotten that Mr. Reed and the Christian Coalition are largely responsible for stopping Pat Buchanan’s insurgent drive for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996. After winning in New Hampshire, Mr. Buchanan had only to win in conservative South Carolina to establish himself as the front runner ahead of Bob Dole. Mr. Reed and other coalition members simply repeated the leftist media charges that Buchanan was a “racist” and an “extremist,” thus helping Mr. Dole win the primary and nomination.
About the same time, the Christian Coalition helped defeat proposed legislation in Congress that would have cut legal immigration by a modest one-third on the grounds that it would have prevented immigrants from bringing in relatives, thereby thwarting “family reunification.” Such an objection is sentimental nonsense, for it is immigrants who first chose to separate from their families and people. Americans are not obligated to end such freely chosen separations by throwing open their borders. [On this incident, see the remarks made by the president of the American Immigration Control Foundation, John Vinson, in his pamphlet “Immigration and Nation, a Biblical View” (AICF, 1997), p. 16.]
Most Christians never mention, much less oppose, policies that directly harm whites: racial quotas, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, forced busing, extortion-motivated “civil rights” lawsuits, black-on-white hate crimes, interracial marriage, and Third-World immigration. They believe Martin Luther King, Jr. was an American Christian hero who truly deserves to be the only American with a national holiday in his honor. They believe “racism” is a sin, but a sin only when it is white racial consciousness or loyalty, never non-white racial consciousness or identity. They believe whites have a moral and Christian obligation to “bridge the racial divide,” integrate their churches, reach out to people of color, etc. It therefore seems a bad joke to speak of Christian conservatives or the Christian Right, for there is nothing conservative about acquiescing in a demographic revolution to turn whites into a minority.
White Christians became racial liberals mainly because the Church has been besieged by the same forces that now dominate every other Western institution. The universalistic and egalitarian ideas of the Enlightenment have now fully penetrated Western culture. Feminist and socialist values have worked their way into Western culture and have overthrown traditional ideals of manhood, patriarchy, and chivalry. Biblical illiteracy, illogic, and historical ignorance have created an environment in which the Scriptures have been perverted into a religious justification for racial liberalism.
There are many examples of such perversion. Christian ministers and writers love to cite the Apostle Paul, who wrote that “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him” (Romans 10:12, New American Standard Bible; all quotations are from this translation, which is known for its accuracy.) They argue this means we should make no racial or ethnic distinctions or even think in racial terms. Paul is said to be conveying the same idea in another epistle: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). In context it is clear these two passages reveal God’s offer of salvation to all regardless of race, nationality, social standing, or sex. They do not mean — and as we will see Paul himself makes it clear he does not mean — that such distinctions should be ignored, that they are unimportant, that acting upon them is sinful, or that they should be overthrown.
If the liberal interpretation of these passages were correct, God would be not only a racial liberal but a socialist and a feminist as well. If these passages endorse the abolition of racial identity and distinctions based on them, they also endorse the obliteration of sex distinctions. And if the Bible supports racial liberalism, why has this fact come to light only in the past century, a century known for its secularism and declining moral and cultural standards?
The Old Testament
Contrary to what one has heard from the pulpit or on Christian radio, the Bible supports racial preservation and even separation. The Bible teaches that mankind is composed not of an amorphous mass of individuals but of nations. It also teaches that the basis of all genuine nations is a common ethnic stock, which is more important even than a common language, culture, political allegiance, or locale. The Bible praises homogeneity as a blessing, and posits it as the basis of love, friendship, social peace, and national harmony. The Bible also sanctions love of nation and fatherland, a virtue antagonistic to indiscriminate and large-scale immigration.
According to the famous “Table of Nations” in Genesis 10, God organized mankind into discrete nations in the aftermath of the Great Flood. He created three sets of nations, each set descending from one of the three sons of Noah: Fourteen nations from Japheth; 30 from Ham; and 26 from Shem. After listing the progenitors of each of the nations that sprang from Shem, Genesis uses a formula closely repeated for Ham and Japheth, “These are the sons of Shem, according to their families, according to their languages, by their lands, according to their nations” (Gen. 10:31). The Genesis account of the dispersal of the nations concludes, “These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood” (Gen. 10:32). These passages make clear that the essential constituent element of each nation is common ancestry, together with a “land” and a distinctive language. This is God’s creation, with no indication that it is anything other than entirely in accord with His will.
Genesis describes the areas in which these different nations settled in terms of migration patterns that conform to a broad division of races. For centuries there was universal agreement in Christendom that the Europeans were descended from Japheth, the Semites (Jews, Persians, Syrians, Arabs, and Asians) from Shem, and the Africans (including Egyptians and Canaanites) from Ham. However literally or figuratively one chooses to interpret this account, Genesis clearly divides the peoples of the earth into groups of related but racially distinct peoples.
Modern Biblical commentators and Christian leaders have tried to deny the obvious by insisting that the division of nations is not providential but accidental. They believe God intended the nations to be all as one (i.e. to cease being distinct nations). Therefore, they urge Christians to do all they can to restore mankind’s lost unity by tearing down national boundaries, promoting mass immigration, teaching English as a universal language, and intermarrying freely with members of other racial families.
This interpretation suffers from several flaws. First, if God intended mankind to be as one, why did He create many nations in the first place? Second, it is contradicted by the order of the Genesis narrative. The Table of Nations comes before the story of the Tower of Babel, indicating that God’s ordering and separating of the nations was part of His plan from the beginning. The sons of Noah refused to follow God’s clear mandate to separate and fill the earth. Instead, they gathered together, founded a city, and built a huge tower as a symbol of their power and independence. However, God’s sovereign purpose cannot be frustrated by the designs of men: “The Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth” (Gen. 11:9).
The scattering was neither arbitrary nor chaotic. According to the Biblical account, people moved with their nations in an orderly exodus that fulfilled God’s purpose. As we learn in Deuteronomy, God gave each nation or people its own lands and separated these lands by territorial boundaries: “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the people” (Deuteronomy 32:8).
The third flaw of the modernist interpretation of Genesis 10 and 11 — and from a Christian perspective the most dangerous — is that it repeats the sin of the people who built the Tower of Babel. The modern desire for global unity, amalgamation of peoples, destruction of territorial boundaries, English as a universal language, and construction of a world government is difficult to see as anything other than a sinful desire to rebuild the Tower of Babel and create an autonomous humanistic order independent of God. It is a rebellious project that defies God’s plan for world order based on discrete nations each residing within its own lands.
Fourth, the project for global unity sullies the beauty and diversity of God’s human creation, in that it suggests that the existence of different races, which vary markedly in physical appearance, is a mistake that man is to remedy by racial intermarriage. In this warped version of creation, God is the bungler and man the redeemer.
|Noah and His Sons Building
the Ark, Raphael, 1517.
Throughout the Old Testament, Biblical writers consistently refer to mankind as composed of distinct peoples and nations, and not as an undifferentiated mass of individuals. In fact, Hebrew has no equivalent for the English word “people,” meaning mankind in general. The psalmist is therefore talking about separate peoples when he declares that all the non-Jewish nations are in rebellion against God, and asks “why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing?” (Psalm 2:1 NASB). When the psalmist speaks of the day when all mankind shall acknowledge the one true God, he shouts “Praise the Lord, all nations; laud Him all peoples” (Psalm 117:1). Likewise, “All the nations whom You have made shall come and worship before You, O Lord” (Psalm 86:9). Although the nations join in praising God, they by no means lose their national identities.
The New Testament
The New Testament reaffirms the national and ethnic distinctions of the Old Testament, if anything, in stronger and clearer terms. Unlike Hebrew, the Greek in which the New Testament was written does have a word for mankind, anthropon; however, it is used infrequently and never suggests the elimination of the national or racial divisions of mankind. Luke wrote that God “made from one [Adam] every nation [ethnos] of mankind [anthropon] to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation” (Acts 17:26). Christ himself commanded his disciples to go and “make disciples of all the nations [ethna]” (Matthew 28:19).
Paul — though often cited in Christian attacks on race and nationality — both in his writings and personal loyalties clearly supports the view that nationality is based on a common ethnic origin. To begin with, one can well ask to what nation did Paul belong, and on what basis? He was born a Roman citizen in the province of Cilicia in Asia Minor. He spoke both Hebrew and Greek fluently. Religiously, he was not only Jewish but a Pharisee. He converted to Christianity. In answer to our questions about his nationality, the modern Christian could offer four possible answers: Paul was a Cilician (place of birth); he was a Roman (citizenship); he was a Greek (language); he was a Jew but became a Christian (religion).
According to Paul himself, all four answers would be wrong, for Paul on numerous occasions, after he became a Christian, identified himself as belonging to the Jewish nation on the basis of birth and heritage — not merely a Jew but of a particular tribe. He was, he claimed, “of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5). When he wrote to the Romans in the city of Rome, he did not claim to be Roman (except by citizenship) but Jewish: “I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” (Romans 11:1). He referred to the Israelites as his “brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites” (Romans 9:3, 4). He also referred to the Roman Christians as his “brethren” (Romans 11:25), but he is clearly speaking in a spiritual sense.
Thus, Paul made a distinction between his ethnic nation (Israel) and his spiritual nation (the Christians). Far from the latter superseding or abolishing the former, as most modern Christian leaders would claim, Paul affirms and honors both as an integral part of his identity. He hoped that more of his ethnic kinsmen would come to accept Christ as the Son of God: “Brethren [Roman Christians], my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them [Israel] is for their salvation” (Romans 10:1 NKJV). He also expressed confidence that God will not “reject His people,” meaning the Jews (Romans 11:1).
Paul uses the Greek word laos (a people) to refer to both an ethnic people, as in the people of Israel, and a spiritual people, as in the people of God. Paul’s use of that word in both contexts proves that ethnicity is not rendered obsolete or illegitimate by coming to Christ.
Paul’s ethnic identification is consistent with everything we know about the ancients, whether Greek, Roman, German, Celt, or Semite. They understood a nation to be a people of a common ancestry or race. The Roman Empire was not a nation, nor did any ancient author consider it to be a nation. They understood it to be an empire made up of many nations.
Differences between English and the Greek of the New Testament can cause misunderstanding. Christ’s commandment that Christians should “love their enemies” sounds in English like a radical, all-embracing injunction that would do away with ethnic or national differences. Greek, however, distinguishes between personal enemies and foreign enemies. It has three words for enemy: polemios (a foreign enemy), agonistes (a competitor or rival), and echthros (a private enemy; literally, one whom you hate). When Christ commands Christians to “love their enemies” (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27,35), he uses the word for one’s private enemy, that is to say someone with whom a Christian has quarreled. Never is this injunction applied to foreign enemies, the enemies of one’s people.
The Bible endorses ethnic homogeneity as a positive good that contributes to peace, harmony, and happiness, whether it be in marriage, friendship, or society. The Hebrews were forbidden, first by their patriarchs and later by God Himself, to marry the sons and daughters of the peoples of the land God had promised them. Abraham made his chief servant swear not to search for a wife for his son Isaac “from the daughters of the Canaanites [Hamites], among whom I live; but you will go to my country and to my relatives [descendants of Shem], and take a wife for my son Isaac” (Gen. 24:3,4).
When Jacob and his family (sons, daughters, and grandchildren), 70 persons in all, went to Egypt to dwell in the land of Goshen under the protection of Pharaoh, only one son, Simeon, had a Canaanite wife in addition to a Hebrew wife (Genesis 46:8-26). Thus, out of all the grandchildren of Jacob, only one was part Hamitic. Upon their return to the Promised Land some 400 years later, Moses forbade the children of Israel to intermarry with the Canaanites, whose land they were preparing to invade and occupy (Exodus 34:12-16; Deuteronomy 7:3).
|Tower of Babel, Peter
Bruegel the Elder, 1563.
Modern theologians, Bible commentators, and pastors are quick to insist that God’s prohibition of such marriages was based on religion rather than race or ethnicity. Their shocking conclusion is that while white Christians are forbidden to marry non-Christian whites they are free to marry non-whites so long as they are Christians. They fail to see that God’s prohibition was based on both religious and racial considerations. God does not condemn interethnic or interracial marriage per se, but He does lay down a principle that would forbid it as a common or widespread practice. The late Rousas J. Rushdoony points out that Biblical law and example is against all kinds of unequal yoking: “The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, interracial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish” (The Institutes of Biblical Law, 1973). Many scriptural examples support this interpretation, as we shall see.
Liberal Christians repeatedly point out that God blessed certain interethnic marriages. The examples they cite are always between Israelites and members of other Semitic peoples who were their ethnic kin (descendants of Shem). When Joseph was serving the Pharaoh of Egypt as his chief adviser and servant, he married a member of the ruling class of Egypt and had sons by her, including Manasseh and Ephraim, both of whom would become the patriarchs of two of the twelve tribes of Israel (Genesis 41:8,50-52). However, his wife, as well as the entire ruling class of Egypt of that time, were Hyksos (a Semitic people who were ruling Egypt at the time). They were thus the cousins, or racial kin, of the Hebrews. Undoubtedly, this ethnic and cultural kinship had something to do with the favor with which the Pharaoh and his people viewed the Hebrews during this period.
When Moses fled Egypt some 400 hundred years later, he sought refuge among the Semitic Midianites, a people descended from Abraham and Keturah, and he took a wife from among them. He thus did not violate God’s prohibition against intermarrying with the cursed Hamitic peoples. (After Ham showed disrespect to his father Noah, God cursed him and all his descendants — Gen. 9:20-25.) Nor does the famous marriage between Boaz (an Israelite) and Ruth (a Moabite) violate the principle of ethnic consanguinity, for the Moabites too were Semites, being descendants of Abraham’s nephew Lot.
Foreign marriages in the Bible are almost always portrayed as acts of unfaithfulness, disobedience, or lust. God promised Abraham many descendants and to make of them a great nation. Abraham believed the Lord, but his wife Sarah was too old to bear children. She therefore permitted Abraham to have intercourse with their Egyptian maid, Hagar. As God intended miraculously to open Sarah’s womb, the result was that Abraham soon had two sons, Ishmael by Hagar (a Hamite) and Isaac by Sarah (a Semite). The result of this mixed lineage was a divided and unhappy household. Eventually, Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away. As Hagar chose an Egyptian wife for Ishmael, the Ishmaelites gradually merged into the surrounding Hamitic peoples and soon ceased to exist as a separate people.
Later, Esau (Isaac and Rebekah’s eldest son) demonstrated his unfaithfulness to God and his people, as well as his lack of sexual restraint, by marrying two Canaanite women who became a “grief of mind to Isaac and Rebekah” (Gen. 26:34, 35). The descendants of Esau’s marriage (the Edomites) became persistent enemies of the Hebrews.
The great Israelite hero Samson had a weakness for foreign women. Against the wishes of his parents, he took a wife from among the Philistines, and he afterward frequented Philistine harlots. It was this lack of sexual restraint and his unwillingness to abide by God’s laws that led to his blindness and death at the hands of his enemies (Judges 16).
Centuries later, when a remnant of the Hebrews returned from their long captivity in Babylon, they repented of their fathers’ propensity to intermarry with foreigners: “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands ... , for they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the holy race is intermingled with the people of the lands” (Ezra 9:1, 2). This is an unmistakable condemnation of ethnic mixture.
Prophecy in both the Old and the New Testament gives strong evidence that God considers his division of mankind into various national or racial families not as an obstacle to be overcome but as an integral, praiseworthy, and permanent part of His creation. In some passages, prophecy points to the eternal significance of these distinctions. David prophesied that “all the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will worship before Thee” (Psalm 22:27 NASB); and that “all the nations whom Thou hast made shall come and worship before Thee” (Psalm 86:9 NASB). James, the half-brother of Jesus, declared before the Jerusalem Church Council that the Father had revealed through the prophet Amos that He would send his Son (Jesus Christ) “so that the rest of mankind [anthropon] may seek the Lord, even all the nations [ethne] who are called by My name” (Acts 15: 17). Election does not destroy national identity.
The Book of Revelations provides clear evidence for the eternal destiny and indestructibility of the nations. In the New Jerusalem (Heaven), “the nations [ethne] shall walk by its light, ... and they shall bring the glory and honor of the nations [ethnon] into it” (Rev. 21:24, 26). Furthermore, John revealed that the leaves of the Tree of Life in the midst of Paradise “were for the healing of the nations [ethnon]” (Rev. 22:2). These passages are impossible to understand without recourse to a doctrine of Christian ethnic nationalism.
Moreover, it is only recently that the churches of the West have claimed that ethnic and racial nationalism are in conflict with Christianity. The great Protestant reformer John Calvin affirmed the necessity and goodness of the national division of mankind: “Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section, men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries.” In this manner, “God, by his providence reduces to order that which is confused” (Quoted in William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait; New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 35).
Of the major Christian churches, only the Eastern Orthodox Church seems to have retained an understanding of the legitimate and necessary place of the nation in the life of the individual Christian. In a recent document, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church affirm both the universality and particularity of every Christian: “The universal nature of the Church, however, does not mean that Christians should have no right to national identity and national self-expressions.” Rather, they urge Christians to develop “national Christian cultures.”
|Samson and Delilah, Rubens.|
The bishops also challenge the leftist dogma that nationalism is acceptable only when it is based on non-ethnic factors: “Christian patriotism may be expressed at the same time with regard to a nation as an ethnic community and as a community of its citizens. The Orthodox Christian is called to love his fatherland, which has a territorial dimension, and his brothers by blood who live everywhere in the world.” In addition, “the patriotism of the Orthodox Christian should be active. It is manifested when he defends his fatherland against an enemy, works for the good of the motherland, cares for the good order of [a] people’s life through, among other things, participation in the affairs of government. The Christian is called to preserve and develop national culture and people’s self-awareness” (“Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 13-16 August 2000, pp. 4-7).
One cannot imagine the Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, or Presbyterian churches issuing a document of such wisdom. It is no coincidence that the one prominent Christian writer who understands that nationalism and Christianity are not in conflict is an Eastern Orthodox Christian, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Upon returning to his homeland in 1993, the Russian patriot explained why he had left a comfortable existence in the United States: “In Vermont I had wonderful conditions, better than anything Tolstoy ever had... I could have stayed there peacefully and in great happiness. But it would have been running away from my duty not to have come back. I could not escape our people’s pain.” His words stand as a rebuke to all Third-World Christians living in America who refuse to return to their homelands to build their own nations and help evangelize their own people.
For centuries Christians have had no difficulty accepting the important teaching of Scripture about the legitimacy of nations. That they now ignore this teaching or misinterpret it points to the poisonous infiltration of Enlightenment and socialist modes of thought. Socialism, whether of the Eastern Communist or Western Social Democratic variety, has been consistently hostile not only to Biblical Christianity but to the national division of mankind. The Russian Christian writer Vadim Borisov described socialism almost thirty years ago as “a well-thought out plan for the destruction of the Christian cosmos, a plan to turn mankind into an amorphous mass.”
The fall of Communism ten years ago did not discredit socialism. The Social Democratic variant is stronger than ever, and continues its work of national destruction. Borisov warned that the socialist promise of happiness through liberation from the past and the imposition of equality was false, for “an impersonal, unstructured, formless existence is impossible.”
The Apostle Paul warned believers to beware of “false prophets and deceitful workers,” for “Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:13, 14). The medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas warned Christians that Satan and his angels disguise themselves sub species boni (under the appearance of good). European Christians should be on their guard against socialists posing as Christians, for the socialistic dream of racial reconciliation and world unity leads to nothing less than the extinction of Europeans as a separate people and the destruction of their civilization. Christians must stand in defense against those who would — in the name of Christ — have us abandon our lands and our people.
Dr. H. A. Scott Trask is an American historian, a writer, a Protestant, and an Anglo-Celt.
One Blood, subtitled, The Biblical Answer to Racism, is written by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten, with a foreword by Zig Ziglar. Even if they are not familiar to AR readers, these names are well regarded in evangelical Christian circles. One Blood, published by Master Press, is considered “mainstream” Christian literature even by some conservatives.
They say you can’t judge a book by its cover, but in this case you can. The cover picture represents the three races of man, all grouped together in the same drop of what is presumably blood. Of course, despite having the word “race” in the subtitle and depicting races on the cover, the authors promptly assert that there is really no such thing as race. The differences we have been taught to think of as races are essentially just variations in skin color, which are nothing more than different concentrations of melanin. One Blood goes on to cite the very slight genetic differences between racial groups (they prefer the term “people groups”), but since the authors are creationists they do not mention that humans are very closely related to chimpanzees. One Blood even endorses the theory that human life originated in sub-Saharan Africa. This apparent conflict with creationism is nothing but an accommodation to the liberalism that has crept even into religious literature.
The crowning achievement of One Blood is its blatant endorsement of interracial marriage. On page 92 there is a chart illustrating who may marry whom, the point being that Christians should not marry non-Christians. The one illustration of an “unacceptable” marriage is a depiction of two whites, one of whom is Christian and the other “non-Christian.” The two illustrations of “acceptable” marriages are both interracial. One is of a white man and an Asian woman (both “non-Christians” and therefore acceptable mates), and the third — the “ideal” marriage of two Christians — is that of a black man and a white woman.
The Bible’s “Great Commission,” found in the final verses of Matthew and Mark, instructs believers to preach the Gospel to all nations — not to invite them to settle in your neighborhood and marry your daughter. There was a time in the not-too-distant past when white people understood this.
— Jerry Prater, Cross City, Fla.
What testosterone does to men and women
One of the most destructive myths of our time is the idea that men and women are equivalent in temperament and act differently only because they are reared differently. Only fanaticism or years of indoctrination could make anyone believe something so silly, but there has been plenty of both. Of the many false egalitarian doctrines, however, this one is probably the most badly wounded. It is only a matter of time before it dies.
Heroes, Rogues, and Lovers, by Georgia State University psychology professor James Dabbs, is one of many recent books to explore the science of sex differences, and it does so by concentrating on the effect of just one substance: testosterone. Although he ignores racial differences, and seems hazy about how intelligence interacts with testosterone, Prof. Dabbs has otherwise written a good, readable account of how hormones affect both men and women.
|Molecular structures of
testosterone (left) and
estrogen (right). The only
difference is that testosterone
only has one extra carbon
atom, which is shaded gray.
Testosterone (T) is the quintessential male hormone that makes men dominant, libidinous, and attractive to women. High-testosterone (HT) men have larger muscles, are more self-confident, don’t follow rules, tend to baldness, are prone to violence, like to fight, and are more likely to have tattoos than other men. They are confrontational and like to take charge. They often end up in blue-collar jobs or as criminals, but they can also be explorers, war heroes, or flashy trial lawyers. Everyone has some notion of what testosterone does, and Prof. Dabbs says all people — rich, poor, old, young, men, women — wish they had more of it.
Many people don’t realize women produce T, though only at about 10 or 12 percent of the male level. It affects women just as it does men, making them more aggressive, sexual, and man-like. It is harder to study in women because the amount in the blood varies with the menstrual cycle. T levels are highest at ovulation, when both a woman’s fertility and sexual desire are greatest.
Testosterone is hard at work before a child is even born, preparing the body to produce and react to T. Even in early childhood, boys clearly like to assert themselves while girls prefer to befriend each other. Girls with twin brothers are more masculine than singleton girls because they shared the womb with a little T factory.
The testosterone level for both sexes peaks at around age 20, then gradually declines. Interestingly, in women after menopause, the decline in the female hormone progesterone is faster than that of testosterone, leaving the male hormone relatively more prominent than in younger women. This is why old women tend to become mannish: hairy, low-voiced, and rough-skinned. Women are more sensitive to small changes in testosterone levels, which is why steroids, which act like male hormones, boost a woman’s athletic performance more than they do a man’s. More T (and steroids) help sprinters more than they do marathoners because they build fast-twitch muscles.
HT women tend to have HT daughters, and although it is the sperm from the father that determines the sex of a child, HT women tend to have more sons than daughters. Perhaps there is something in their wombs that encourages implantation of male fetuses. Conversely, feminine women who are high in progesterone tend to have more daughters.
A woman’s testosterone level is one of the best predictors of how often a couple has sex. This does not appear to be because the woman necessarily initiates sex but because she is more likely to be receptive when the man does. “Butch”-type lesbians have more testosterone than “femmes,” though lesbians in general appear not to have higher testosterone than other women.
Testosterone is central to the best-measured differences between men and women: the female superiority with words and the male superiority with numbers and spatial relations. It is generally supposed that women evolved to be more verbal because they needed to form networks of friends to support themselves and their children, whereas men had more straightforward ways of getting what they needed.
Men are also more single-minded, and able to stick with projects that take months or years, while women are more easily distracted and have more diffuse interests. According to one theory, women had to be less intently focused on what they did because there were always children in the background that needed watching.
Some of the most interesting evidence that T levels cause these sex differences comes from the experiences of women getting hormone treatments as part of sex-change operations. As more T makes them more masculine, their verbal ability declines, but they get better at fixing things. Women generally have finer hand coordination than men, but as T turns them into men they become clumsier. Sex hormones, as Prof. Dabbs explains, even explain where the body stores fat:
“Testosterone makes men store fat around their stomachs, where it can be easily burned off for energy in emergencies. Estrogen makes women store fat on their hips, buttocks, and thighs, where it tends to stay unless needed to make up food shortages during pregnancy or breast-feeding.”
T appears to be an essential ingredient in putting on a good show, having a commanding presence, or projecting confidence. As Prof. Dabbs explains: “Men who are high in testosterone think well of themselves. They see themselves as people of consequence. They don’t make little jokes about themselves or put themselves down.”
T levels are temporarily affected by victory or loss. If a man loses a fight or backs down in a confrontation his T level temporarily drops, but it goes up after winning. The contest need not be physical; winners in chess matches get a T boost, while the losers get a T slump. Prof. Dabbs speculates that this is nature’s way of protecting the losers. A man with temporarily low T is less likely to pick another fight he might lose. The winner on the other hand, is emboldened for the next contest.
Men smile less often than women, and HT men smile least of all. This is probably because smiling is a sign of friendliness and ingratiation, whereas HT-types get their way through domination rather than ingratiation. When asked to pose for a picture, LT men are more likely than HT men to smile, and when HT men smile, they put on a wolfish smirk rather than a broad smile that lights up the face. Prof. Dabbs says he has learned to tell T levels simply from the way a man looks. HT men have strong jaws and seem “more serious, tough, and hard.” Interestingly, LT men are more comfortable when they are by themselves, whereas HT men like to be around others. Perhaps they need constant grist for their desire to dominate.
Prof. Dabbs reports that the biggest audience for nature/wildlife films is young men — the group with the most T. They particularly like it when a predator stalks, catches, and kills its prey. No doubt the most enthusiastic patrons of the Coliseum were young men.
Scientists don’t yet know exactly how T works, but individual molecules of it last no more than a few hours before they are taken up by the body to do their job. The hypothalamus keeps the T level constant, and sees to it the body produces more if a man is preparing for a fight.
Testosterone influences the expression of certain genes. For example, impalas of both sexes have the same genes for horns, but it is only high levels of T that activate those genes, so only males have horns. Even plants produce testosterone. Alfalfa and clover, for example, make enough of it to control the fertility of grazing animals. Prof. Dabbs reports that each year in Australia a million sheep fail to have lambs because they have been temporarily sterilized from eating too much clover.
Despite its glamour and swagger, testosterone has costs, and this book emphasizes them. HT men take risks, fight a lot, and kill each other off. They want and get a lot of sex, but they don’t like to stick around to rear children. They tend not to marry, and to get divorced when they do. If they do stay with a woman they are not very happy.
T makes animals violent, too. Birds that have been injected with an extra dose sing more, try to patrol a larger area, get into fights, and are less likely to live out the season. Males — including humans — live longer if they have been castrated. Prof. Dabbs cites a study of mentally retarded people that found eunuchs lived 13” years longer than intact men! By comparison, refraining from smoking increases life expectancy by only 4.9 years.
Not surprisingly, prisons are full of HT men (and women). Violent offenders and ones that break prison rules have the most T. Male prisoners tend to sort themselves out into a pecking order, with the meanest, highest-T man at the top, and the LT patsies at the bottom. Female prisoners reportedly form small cliques rather than hierarchies. Like men, though, the most violent and aggressive have the most T.
There is a fine line between criminality and heroism. Prof. Dabbs points out that the men who make the best soldiers are likely to be HT-types who were troublemakers in peacetime, and that soldiers decorated for heroism are quite likely to have criminal records. Likewise, the policeman who gets citations for saving lives may well be the one who is disciplined for beating up perps. “Fearlessness and high testosterone often go together,” writes Prof. Dabbs, “with fearlessness making it easier for a high-testosterone person either to mistreat others or to help them.” He adds that HT men sometimes appear to step in to protect a victim more because they want to punish an aggressor than because they want to help people in trouble.
As the chart on this page shows, different professions tend to attract men with different levels of T. Ministers (not on the chart) and farmers have the lowest levels perhaps, speculates Prof. Dabbs, because they spend their lives dealing with things they can’t control. Actors have the highest T, closely followed by professional athletes. Even ordinary men, however, sometimes act like HT-types; airlines don’t like to have a bunch of men sitting in an airplane’s emergency-exit row because they are likely to get into a fight over who is in charge of the exit rather than make sure everyone gets off.
As Prof. Dabbs points out, HT boys don’t like to sit still in school. Also, they tend to speak and write poorly, which makes them bad students. Not surprisingly, it is men with the least T who stay in school longest, and this is one reason intellectuals are liberal. They are verbal, LT-types who think like women.
Prof. Dabbs notes that T has a lot to do with tribal consciousness, and a vivid sense of one’s own group interests, and that men feel much more strongly about these things than women. He also cites research that showed “more men than women favored inequality among social groups, military programs, and punitive public policy, whereas more women than men favored equal rights and social programs.” Men and women have different politics, and T has a lot to do with it. LT men are more altruistic — and more like women in their politics — than HT men.
|Males — including humans — live longer if they have been castrated.|
Prof. Dabbs suggests men are better off being more like women: “Low-testosterone people tend to be more friendly, more intellectual, and more interested in the welfare of others than are high-testosterone people. Low-testosterone people tend to do better in school, have higher-status occupations, feel closer to their friends and families, and have happier marriages.” This may be true, but the author is also a liberal college professor.
Heroes, Rogues, and Lovers is informative but very timid. Although Prof. Dabbs does concede that men and women are different, he writes as if this had no social consequences. Never does he suggest that biological sex differences explain why men and women differ in career choice, political participation, sexual behavior, and a thousand other ways. Different sex roles are part of nature, but Prof. Dabbs cannot bring himself to say so.
As for racial differences, he does venture to say that climate may influence T-related behavior. Where winters are harsh, children may die without the protection of a man, so men who live in the north are more likely to help look after children. Prof. Dabbs even hints there is a biological basis for this, but quickly drops the subject.
Prof. Dabbs seems to have read just about everything ever written about T, but never mentions that blacks have the most T, whites somewhat less, and Asians the least. This helps explain race differences in crime, illegitimacy, violence, drop out rates, and much more, but Prof. Dabbs, who brags about his father’s civil rights work and who thinks Head Start was a great success, probably left this out deliberately.
Also, he touches only briefly on the connection between intelligence and T, noting only that in adolescent boys, high intelligence seems to make up for some of the negative effects of T. In fact, among HT men, the smart ones are far less likely to end up in jail or abandon their children, and research shows that the combination of high intelligence and HT is an excellent indicator of success in life. This is bad news for blacks, who are more likely to have the unfortunate combination of low intelligence and HT — which is doubtless why Prof. Dabbs skirts the subject.
Testosterone explains a great deal about how people differ, but this book concentrates only on the differences that are least controversial — differences between individual men — and then suggests high testosterone levels are really a curse anyway. Testosterone has great explanatory power with respect to sex and race differences, but Prof. Dabbs apparently does not have enough testosterone to write about them.
The struggle to present the facts about race and crime
The research report The Color of Crime is probably the most spectacular single undertaking of the New Century Foundation. Nothing else it has done has received so much mainstream exposure. The report includes such eye-opening findings as the fact that blacks commit 90 percent of all interracial crimes in America, and are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes. The press conference introducing “The Color of Crime” was covered by C-Span (which replayed it several times) and the report was the subject of countless talk radio programs. Americans are clearly fascinated by the connection between race and crime.
|“Do I actually have to explain why a report on crime is relevant to a civic organization?” I asked.|
Given my unusual access to the media, I have used every opportunity to promote “The Color of Crime.” I’ve written about it no fewer than four times in my weekly column, and have physically brought the report with me to radio stations for interviews. As an elected and well-known public official who has spoken to many civic organizations, I decided to use a speaking engagement of that kind for a full-blown treatment of “The Color of Crime.”
The purpose was to keep giving the report as much coverage as possible but I also wanted to tape the event for use on a political debate program I host on public access cable television. While I have discussed “The Color of Crime” on my show, I have never given the study a full and complete airing — press conference-style, complete with questions and answers — which would allow for a thorough explanation of its findings.
I spent many hours putting my presentation together, making it even longer than Jared Taylor’s initial press conference, so that it would fit nicely into a one-hour television format. What I found in my quest to speak before local citizens was disheartening, but perhaps not surprising in hindsight.
There are several important points to bear in mind about the organizations before which I sought to speak about “The Color of Crime.” First, the overwhelming majority of members like me, voted for me (or would if they could), and generally agree with my conservative views. While the organizations are not necessarily overtly political or ideological (they are generally property owner or taxpayer groups), the members are quite conservative and close to 100 percent white. Second, these are groups I’ve spoken to before, so they are familiar to me. Third, I have good, friendly relations with the leaders of these groups.
Last summer I contacted the presidents of two groups about speaking about “The Color of Crime,” and had Mr. Taylor mail them copies of the report. The president of the Juniper Park Civic Association, who was, in fairness, an advocate for my presentation, told me I would have to make my request to speak directly to the entire board of directors, who would then vote on it. This was a very unusual procedure. It may be that the board approves speakers, but a potential speaker has never had to make a mini-presentation beforehand. I gave a five-minute overview to perhaps 12 board members. The response was nervous stares, icy looks and outright hostility on the part of two members who pressed me on “what relevance this had” to the Juniper Park Civic Association. Within a few days, the president told me that I was turned down, though he wouldn’t say what the final vote was.
I had a different experience with the Middle Village Property Owners, whose president chooses speakers on his own authority. I thought I had a good relationship with the man, who is a fellow member of the local Republican club. I had given him the report, and had more than one lengthy conversation about it but months went by without an answer. One day in December I learned of a guest speaker scheduled to discuss child autism that evening — and who had asked to speak only the day before.
I called up the president and asked about my six-month-old request. To my amazement, he pretended not to know what “The Color of Crime” was about, and then said he hadn’t had enough time to look it over. “Did you look over the girl who gave you one day’s notice to speak?” I asked. “Well,” he said, “what is the relevance of this report to the members?” I couldn’t believe my ears. “Do I actually have to explain why a report on crime is relevant to a civic organization?” I asked. “How many of your members are personally touched by autism?”
He finally turned honest: “Look, I’ll catch a lot of hell from people if I let you talk about this.” Of course, the only “hell” he would catch would be from a handful of politically correct insiders, not the general membership, but the leaders of these organizations are always more politically sensitive and cowardly than the members.
My most recent attempt to talk about “The Color of Crime” was perhaps the most disheartening, but also the most comical. In February, the Forest Park Republican Club invited me to speak, and I said I wanted to talk about a report called “The Color of Crime.” The president said it sounded “kind of racy” but I assured him it was based strictly on government statistics. I also told him I wanted to videotape the talk.
Just one day before I was to speak, a member of the club’s executive board called to ask if I would mind speaking a half hour earlier than scheduled because he had just gotten word Herman Badillo had agreed to speak that night. Herman Badillo is the first Puerto Rican to gain political prominence in New York City and is a well-known politician. He has been a congressman, Bronx Borough President, and has run for mayor five times, so the club was excited to have him. I decided on balance it was good for Mr. Badillo to come because he would only increase turnout.
However, when I arrived for the presentation, the video man I had hired was standing outside, furious. He said he would not be allowed to tape my talk. The president and another board member told me they had “only today” made the decision, but when I pressed them for reasons I got only blank stares. Just before I was introduced, one board member stood up and gave a meandering disclaimer — obviously directed at me — saying the club sometimes invites speakers who in no way represent the views of the club. I had never heard anything like it and was tempted to ask if they were going to make the same disclaimer before Mr. Badillo’s speech.
Fifteen minutes after I started, a board member was waving his hands at me to finish up. Afterwards, it was announced there would be no questions, but anyone who wanted could speak to me “in private.” The club also moved its huge banner, which is usually right behind the speaker, off to the side so I couldn’t be photographed in front of it. When I finished, members moved it back. Much to the board’s relief, Mr. Badillo arrived only after I had spoken. Ironically, the only person to approach me afterwards was the one black person in the room, who thanked me for my talk and told me blacks had broken into his home and car many times.
After my disappointment with the Forest Park Republicans I scheduled the taping of a press conference in a studio to get material for my television program. There is no telling when I will find a local organization willing to hear the truth about race and crime.
Mr. Borzellieri is a columnist for the Ledger-Observer newspaper chain in New York City and an elected member of Community School Board 24.
Editor’s note: Mr. Borzellieri is right to say that The Color of Crime has been the single most successful New Century Foundation publication. Of the hundreds of radio interviews I have given, no other subject has so often prompted hosts to keep me on the air longer than scheduled or invite me back just a few days later to continue the discussion. In several cities, producers at radio stations heard me talking about race and crime on a competing station and were so interested they called to schedule their own interviews. All of which is to say this is a subject in which Americans take an intense interest. It is absurd for the presidents of civic associations to pretend it has “no relevance” for their members. [The report is still available for $5.00 per copy or $3.00 each for orders of ten or more.] — Jared Taylor
|IN THE NEWS|
Over the weekend of May 26-28 Britain had a full-fledged race riot — the worst in 15 years. In the down-at-heel industrial town of Oldham, 190 miles northwest of London, hundreds of whites and Asians (in Britain this means Pakistanis, Indians, and Bangladeshis) battled each other and the police, burning cars, throwing “petrol bombs” (Molotov cocktails), and setting up barricades of burning tires to keep each other off their turf. There were no deaths but dozens of people were injured and police arrested about 50 young men.
Racial tension has been building so spectacularly in Oldham that news items about its violence and “no-go areas” for whites have appeared in three of the last four issues of AR (March, April, June). No one really knows what started the riot. Some people said it began with a fight between white and Asian schoolboys; others said it was name-calling outside a fish-and-chip shop. Tension has been so high anything could have set it off. By the evening of May 26, Oldham faced the very un-British spectacle of hundreds of police in riot gear, backed up by circling helicopters with searchlights, trying vainly to keep the peace. At one point there were an estimated 700 Asians gathered in the city center, smashing store windows, burning cars, and tossing petrol bombs.
|After the party.|
Paul Barrow, owner of the ironically-named Live and Let Live pub, spent Saturday night barricaded inside together with 40 customers. The first sign of trouble came about 9:00 p.m. when a group of Asians stormed in, kicking and punching white patrons. More Asians returned just after 11:00, this time with bricks and petrol bombs. The attackers tried to drive a car through the door, but failed. They then pounded the windows with hammers, but could not break the pub’s half-inch laminated glass. “That glass saved a lot of people,” says Mr. Barrow. “I only had it put in five weeks ago after one of the other racist incidents in the town.” The police arrived but faced a pitched battle. “They [the Asians] were using everything they could get their hands on,” says Mr. Barrow, “pushing cars, using shopping trolleys to ram the police and hurling bricks.” He adds that “about 100-150 Asian youths came out from behind the trees throwing petrol bombs and stones at the police.”
Only a massive police presence, with hundreds of extra officers rushed in from surrounding areas, kept rioting from continuing into a third night.
The official reaction is that the disturbances were uncharacteristic and nothing to worry about. “I do not think it is typical of the state of race relations in Britain today,” explained Prime Minister Tony Blair. “I think the vast majority of people want to live together in peace and harmony with one another.” It is true that Oldham is not “typical.” In Britain as a whole only about five percent of the people are non-white; in Oldham 25 percent are non-white.
It was also common to blame the riots on “right-wing whites.” Indeed, the buildup of racial hostility has attracted the notice of the British National Party (BNP — see May issue), and the National Front. The BNP is running parliamentary candidates — one of whom is chairman Nick Griffin — in all three Oldham constituencies, and the National Front recently marched through town to protest attacks on whites. However, police reported that BNP campaign literature was perfectly legal and by no means promoted violence.
Even more telling, white Oldham residents do not blame outside agitators at all. For months they have complained of increasing hostility from Asians, and repeated racial attacks. Like the pub-owner who put up bullet-proof glass, they saw this riot coming a long way off. Local authorities also plan to build metal gates to prevent easy access from at least one Asian neighborhood into an adjoining white area. The gate separates locals; it does not keep out outside agitators.
The Oldham riots are only the most prominent — so far — in a series. Over the same weekend, 60 young Asians mixed it up with whites in the southern English town of Aylesbury. Police arrested 13 Asians and seven whites, but insisted there was no connection with what was happening in Oldham.
Just a week earlier there were smaller white-Asian riots in Bradford, as well as increasing tension between Indian Hindus and Pakistani Muslims. Hasmukh Shah, a Hindu, says that under cover of the rioting, Pakistanis burned down his pharmacy, causing a million dollars’ worth of damage. He says Muslims are driving Hindus out of Bradford: “This is really a demographic, systematic ethnic cleansing.”
On June 6, just nine days after the uneasy peace in Oldham, riots broke out in Leeds, just 40 miles away. Some 300 Asians, mostly Bangladeshis, battled police for seven straight hours, hijacking and burning cars, and throwing petrol bombs. “They were taking cars and rolling them downhill at police as they were trying to clear the riots,” one policeman said. Another said some of the rioting took the form of “a premeditated attack on police officers, who were drawn into the area.” Once again, it took circling helicopters and hundreds of officers called in from surrounding areas to put down the violence. As BNP chairman Nick Griffin pointed out during the Oldham riots, when towns were all white, “this kind of problem naturally didn’t arise.”
Nasser Hussein is the captain of the English national cricket team. He was born in India and lived on the subcontinent until age five, when he came to England. He says Pakistanis who grew up in Britain should cheer for the English team, even when it plays Pakistan. “I cannot really understand why those born here, or who came here at a very young age like me, cannot support or follow England,” he says. No doubt he can’t understand the riots either. [Bradford Intimidation Claims Denied, BBC News, May 15, 2001. Ed Cropley, Britain Blames Town’s Riots on Outside Racists, Reuters, May 28, 2001. Ed Johnson, Third Night of Violence in England, AP, May 29, 2001. Ed Cropley, UK Race Riots Highlight Asian Identity Struggle, Reuters, May 28, 2001. Dominic Kennedy, Backlash from Whites “Under Siege,’ Times (London), May 31, 2001. Police Dismiss Oldham Connection to Aylesbury Violence, Reuters, May 28, 2001. Asian Youths Again Battle British Riot Police, Reuters, June 6, 2001.]
‘Rapper Dentist Daddy’
Dr. Ronald Cunning, a white dentist who practices in Montclair, California (near Los Angeles), has found an unusual niche. Known as “Rapper Dentist Daddy,” he specializes in gold crowns and jeweled teeth. As he explains in his Hip Hop Dentistry Home Page: “Gold crowns can be made as part of your permanent smile, or in some cases a removable appliance can be made to cover your natural teeth when you want that “Hip Hop’ look. We use a special 22kt. dental alloy that is a rich deep yellow color, and high quality diamonds. The cost runs from $1,000 to $1,500 per tooth which includes the gemstones.” Dr. Cunning apparently expects a national and even international clientele. His web page includes information on air travel to Montclair, accommodations, and tourist attractions in the area.
Blacks Go Too Far?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is one of the most liberal papers in the country. There is very little blacks say or do of which it disapproves, so it was with some astonishment that we read the editorial excerpted below:
“Tonight, the Atlanta City Council seems poised to give final approval to a map of its voting districts that features at least one district drawn on the basis of race and race alone. If that map is adopted, black politicians in a majority black city will have used their political power to limit minority white representation.”
The editorial points out that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down such districts when whites drew them for their own benefit, and continues:
“The potential for erosion of black voting strength in this city is slim. Though Atlanta has more whites than it did in 1980 or 1990, the city is still 61 percent black, and the minority that needs protection now happens to be white.
“Yet in a public meeting a few weeks ago, person after person stood up and invoked the race issue as the reason to adopt a redistricting map presented by council member Sherry Dorsey. Several speakers at the meeting, recorded and shown on television, said outright that white people had no business moving into black neighborhoods, and that blacks should be represented by blacks and whites by whites...”
“The chief advantage of the map she drew seemed to be keeping a nearly 80 percent black majority to assure her re-election. Since she has alienated the whites in her district, she hardly expects them to support her.
“Liz Coyle, [white] president of the Atkins Park neighborhood near Virginia-Highland, has contacted the Justice Department to urge officials there to look closely at Atlanta’s map when it comes in. She said that after attending the April 30 council meeting where the Dorsey map was introduced, “I was afraid to walk to my car, the tone was so threatening.’” [Atlanta Voters of All Races Need Their Rights Protected, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 21, 2001.]
Middle-class blacks in the Atlanta area are increasingly turning their backs on integration and living in self-segregated suburbs in southwest Atlanta and nearby southeast DeKalb County. “It’s not a separatist thing,” says sociologist Robert Bullard of Clark Atlanta University. “It’s a choice to be whole.” He says his people are finally discovering the costs of desegregation: “Blacks lost some of their identity. They lost their businesses. They saw predominantly black neighborhoods get worse. Now many of them, they want to build something on their own terms.”
Resegregation has been good for Eddie Long. As bishop of New Birth Missionary Church in southeast DeKalb County, he has seen his congregation go from 300 in 1987 to 22,000 today. He calls this largely-black part of the county the “promised land,” explaining that “quite a few of our members moved out from the city because they wanted their children to grow up in a nurturing black community.”
Marlon Tyler, a telecommunications engineer who lives in a nearby black suburb, is happy to have found “a strong black community.” “There is a lot of love here,” he explains. [Kirk Kicklighter, Many Middle-Class Blacks Prefer Own Communities, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 6, 2001, p. A16.]
More Choices to be Whole
Researchers at the State University of New York at Albany report that although black/white segregation among adults decreased during the 1990s, segregation of children increased. This means childless and single people are more willing to live in integrated urban areas than are families with children.
Segregation is measured by what is called the “segregation index,” which runs from 0 to 100. The score indicates the percentage of people who would have to move, in order to have neighborhood residential patterns that appear racially random. Zero means complete integration and 100 means complete segregation, with any number over 60 considered “highly segregated.”
The Albany researchers found that the national segregation index decreased during the 1990s from 69.4 to 65.1, but the segregation index for children increased from 65.5 to 68.3. Of the 50 largest cities, the 10 most segregated for children were, in order: Detroit, Milwaukee, New York, Newark, Chicago, Cleveland, Miami, Cincinnati, Birmingham, Ala., and St. Louis. Segregation indices ranged from 86 in Detroit to 77 in St. Louis.
The 10 least segregated areas for black and white children were, in order: Riverside-San Bernardino, Calif.; Norfolk, Va.; Charleston, S.C.; Augusta, Ga.; Greenville, S.C.; Raleigh-Durham, N.C.; Jacksonville, Fla.; Columbia, S.C.; San Diego, and Sacramento. The segregation indices ranged from Riverside’s 47 to Sacramento’s 58. Children are most likely to be integrated in cities located near large military bases. [Eric Schmitt, Segregation Growing Among U.S. Children, New York Times, May 6, 2001.]
Europe Cast(e)s a Shadow
A study has found that members of the higher castes in India are genetically close to Europeans while lower-caste Indians are more similar to Asians. Researchers from the University of Utah found that while maternally-inherited DNA of high-caste Indians was similar to that of Asians, paternally-inherited DNA was much closer to that of East Europeans. The higher the caste, the stronger the European genetic link. This study supports the view that European invaders of some 5,000 years ago took Indian wives, and created the caste system with themselves at the top. The genetic differences have survived because the caste system — which works as an elaborate, religiously-based anti-miscegenation scheme — forbids intermarriage between castes. [Ananova.com, Indian Caste Shows Link to Europeans, May 14, 2001, reporting on Michael Bamshad, Toomas Kivisild, et. al., Genetic Evidence on the Origin of Indian Caste Populations, Genome Research Journal, May 8, 2001.]
Only 18 percent of the population of Peru is white, but this mostly Spanish-descended elite has long run the country. On June 3, the other 82 percent — Indians and mestizos — elected one of their own as president. Alejandro Toledo, who waved the rainbow flag of the Incas at political rallies and calls himself a cholo (Peruvian of mixed ancestry), is certainly the first person to become a Latin American head of state by appealing to Indian pride. Short and dark, he repeatedly described himself as “a stubborn Indian rebel with a cause.” He swept the inland areas with large Indian populations, and lost the coast, where whites live. The evening after what foreign observers say is the cleanest election the country has ever had, tens of thousands of supporters poured into Lima shouting “Pachacutic returns” — a reference to a great Inca king whom Mr. Toledo is said to resemble. He promised his followers he would hold a second inauguration at Machu Pichu, the long-lost Andean city of the Incas.
Mr. Toledo’s opponent was Alan Garcia, a 6-foot 3-inch former president who looks every inch a Spaniard. His five years in office from 1985 to 1990 were marked by corruption, guerrilla violence, food shortages, and runaway inflation, but Mr. Toledo is no boy scout either. He told many lies during the campaign — falsely claiming, for example, that his mother died in an earthquake — and has had to battle charges of philandering and wife-beating.
In a field of poor candidates, race appears to have triumphed. “It’s a source of pride that for the first time in my life I’ll have someone of Indian race governing me,” says a 62-year-old Indian migrant from the Ayacucho highlands. It remains to be seen what the new regime will mean for whites. “This is a very racist society,” says Mr. Toledo. “The elitist leadership still has trouble digesting the possibility that someone like us could come to govern.” [Niko Price, Toledo Wins Peru Presidential Vote, AP, June 4, 2001. Anthony Faiola, Peru Elects Indian as President, Washington Post, June 4, 2001, p. 1A.]
Last month we reported that a 20-year-old white man was the first person to be charged with a hate crime in connection with the April riots in Cincinnati. Now a black has finally been indicted for what in Ohio is called “ethnic intimidation.” At the beginning of the riots, a 15-year-old black — whose name has not been released — tried to steal a white man’s truck, and got into a fight with the driver, Robert Stearns. A crowd of approximately 20 blacks surrounded Mr. Stearns, shouting “Kill the white man. Kill whitey.” “The more they yelled, the more they beat me,” says Mr. Stearns. “Why they wanted to kill me, I don’t know.” The attack, in which Mr. Stearns feared for his life, was caught on video tape. Police are studying more footage and expect to make more hate crime indictments.
Some black leaders say the best way to promote racial “healing” in Cincinnati is to declare an amnesty for crimes committed during the riots. Hamilton County prosecutor Michael Allen has refused. “The quickest way to allow this kind of stupidity to happen again is to grant amnesty,” he says. [Steve Miller, Black Teen Charged in Cincinnati Hate Crime, Washington Times, May 31, 2001.]
Confidential surveys conducted in 1995 and 1999 asked Seattle high school students: “Has anyone ever made racial comments or attacked you based on race or ethnicity, at school or on your way to or from school?” In 1995, 48 percent of whites but only 36 percent of blacks said “yes.” In 1999, 32 percent of whites and 26 percent of blacks reported racial harassment. Seattle school system program manager Pamela Hillard, who directed the surveys, literally has nothing to say about the fact that whites reported more racial incidents than blacks: “I don’t have a particular take on it. It surprises a lot of people. It doesn’t surprise other people. I don’t have anything in particular to say.”
White students had plenty to say. “Sometimes other people and myself are harassed because we are white. People of other races seem to have an unprovoked problem with white people,” wrote one student. Another wrote, “I don’t see any white kids harassing black kids, but I do see it the other way around. No racial comments, but they’ll jump in the faces of white kids, trying to scare them. Then they laugh about it.” [Phil Campbell, The Skin Game: White High-School Kids Complain of Racial Harassment, TheStranger.com, May 17, 2001.]
Drugs for Blacks
In May, we reported on a new drug called BiDil that has essentially no effect on whites but reduces mortality in black heart-failure patients by a remarkable 66 percent. It appears to work by increasing the level of nitric oxide in the blood, which dilates blood vessels. Many blacks are deficient in nitric oxide, and are twice as likely as whites to suffer heart failure. The drug has been designed exclusively for blacks and requires one more, blacks-only clinical test to get approval from the FDA. BiDil has the support of the Association of Black Cardiologists.
“Anti-racist” scientists who claim race is biologically meaningless oppose both the drug and the study. “It is disturbing to see reputable scientists and physicians even categorizing things in terms of race,” says Dr. J. Craig Venter of Celera Genomics, the company that recently completed mapping the human genome. “Having medicine based on what somebody looks like coming into a physician’s office is totally scientifically unsound,” he adds. Dr. Venter would presumably prefer people went untreated rather than admit that race is biological.
Jay Cohn of University of Minnesota, who holds the patent for BiDil, appears to understand the irony of such criticism: “Here we have the black community accepting the concept that African-Americans need to be studied as a group, and then we have the scientific community claiming that race is dead,” he says. “It seems to me absolutely ludicrous to suggest that this prominent characteristic that we all recognize when we look at people should not be looked at.” [Victoria Griffith, FDA Paves the Way for First “Ethnic’ Drug, Financial Times (London), March 8, 2001. Sheryl Gay-Stolberg, Skin Deep: Shouldn’t a Pill be Colorblind?, New York Times, May 13, 2001.]
In the 1990s, Iowa grew by only five percent — not enough for Governor Tom Vilsack (D), who fears there could be labor shortages. He wants more immigrants, not only to fill jobs but leaven his 94-percent-white state with much-needed diversity. Many of his constituents like things the way they are. A Des Moines Register poll of the capital area found that 67 percent of respondents want no more diversity. “No, we don’t need more,” says Linda Reynolds, an accountant. “We aren’t ready for what we have.” De Moines’ black mayor, Preston Daniels, takes the governor’s side: “We have to continue to indicate to the public that our community can and should be more diverse and that it will add significantly to the dynamics of our city and our state.”
Diversity opponents point to the meat-packing town of Storm Lake. In 1987 it had only a few non-whites. Today, a third of its 10,000 residents are minorities — mostly Hispanics. In the entire decade of the 1980s there was one murder; in the 1990s there were ten, all non-whites killing other non-whites. The school system is swarming with Spanish-speaking children, and recently got a $10 million federal grant to help cope with them. Mae Greene undoubtedly speaks for the majority when she says: “This is Iowa, not Miami or Southern California. Why would we want to turn Iowa into something it is not? Let those people go somewhere else.”
If the governor has his way it will be Storm Lake’s first Hispanic town councilman who has the last word. “We are the faces of Iowa to come,” says Hector Velez. [E.A. Torriero, Immigration Drive Tests Iowa, Chicago Tribune, May 4, 2001. Thomas Beaumont and John McCormack, Area Diverse Enough, Most Say, Des Moines Register, May 13, 2001.]
The state of Michigan awards $2,500 scholarships to students who get top scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) test. Blacks are 14 percent of the state population but get only seven percent of the scholarships, so the ACLU is suing, claiming MEAP is biased. Blacks were particularly likely to get the following question wrong:
What formed the basins now occupied by the Great Lakes? (a) glaciers, (b) earthquakes, (c) meteors striking the earth, (d) ocean bays being surrounded by water. The correct answer is (a).
Ernest Bauer, a consultant reviewing the test, doubts there is bias. “The reason I’m not comfortable calling it a bias is, when you read the items, there’s no obvious reason for the differences,” he says. Walter Edwards, a professor at Wayne State University who specializes in African-American vernacular English, claims to have found the bias: “The average African-American lives in an urban area or a metropolitan area. They don’t have the experience with their kids of going to the north or seeing glaciers.” [Peggy Walsh-Sanecki, Race Plays a Big Role in MEAP Scores, Detroit Free Press, May 17, 2001, p. 1.]
No Loans for Keisha
Keisha Hardeman is valedictorian of Miller High School in Corpus Christi, Texas. News reports do not indicate her SAT scores, but she is black. Miss Hardeman has been offered admission to MIT, Harvard, Columbia and more than 20 other universities, and has amassed $1.3 million in scholarship offers. She will go to Texas A&M, which will pay all her expenses, including a semester abroad. Miss Hardeman’s parents were willing to take out loans to pay for college but, she says, “I didn’t think that was fair.” The Miller High student with the next-highest total in scholarship offers is James Garza with $331.500. [Paula Caballero, A Texas High School Valedictorian Racks up $1.3 Million in Scholarship Offers, Scripps Howard News Service, June 1, 2001.]
Ever since the killing of James Byrd, the black man whites dragged to death in 1998, the Texas legislature has been wrestling with “hate crime” bills. The Democrat-controlled House passed them but they stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate. This spring the exercise was repeated, with a bill stuck in the Senate despite considerable media clamor.
On the night of May 2, someone painted white swastikas and other racial graffiti on one of Dallas’ most prominent black churches, St. Luke Community United Methodist. Several black elected officials are members, and the pastor, Zan Holmes, is a prominent racial ambulance-chaser. The bellowing that followed was enough to push the “James Byrd” hate crimes bill through the Senate, and Gov. Rick Perry signed it on May 11.
Now it appears that a church member probably painted the swastikas. The choir practiced until 10:20 p.m. that night, and shortly afterwards a white couple driving by noticed a black man painting something on the outside of the church. Until the media eruption that followed, they thought he was taking part in a youth program, so did not report the incident until several days later. Police discovered that the swastikas were painted with white latex, which was the type of paint used recently to renovate a church office.
Needless to say, Pastor Holmes is indignant about the police investigation: “I consider that to be a worse attack than the attack of the painting, the defacing of the building, for people to deface our personalities, the integrity of this church.” [Hugh Aynesworth, Black Implicated in Desecration Case, Washington Times, May 28, 2001.]
Suicide With a Smile
John Sharp is a former Texas Comptroller and Senator, and possible candidate for Lieutenant Governor of the state. On June 9, 2000, he addressed the Democratic Hispanic Caucus at the Texas Democratic Convention. He began by saying that his “greatest regret” was that his grandfather had not changed the family name to a Spanish one. He then went on to say:
“It is time for the Democratic party and for all of us to work harder than we ever did before and make sure that there is a Hispanic surname at the very top of the ballot in 2002. And if that means that some of us gringos are going to have to give up some life-long dreams, then we’ve got to do that.”
Stark Racial Divide
Last year, the Chicago City Council voted 46-1 to urge Congress to consider some form of compensation for slavery. In May, a survey of 898 Illinois voters found strong opposition among whites to the idea. Only five percent thought the government should pay reparations, while 84 percent thought it should not. Among blacks, 66 percent favored reparations and only 15 percent were opposed. [Gary Washburn and Celeste Garrett, Very Few Whites, Most Blacks Want Slavery Redress, Chicago Tribune, May 20, 2001.]
It is the job of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) to keep Canada free of prejudice, discrimination, and insensitivity. Apparently, it can’t keep itself free of these scourges. An internal report found deep dissatisfaction among the CHRC’s 230 employees, who complained of spiteful managers, sexual discrimination, and a “poisoned work environment.” Forty percent of the staff quit in the last 12 months, and 37 percent of those who remain are hoping to quit soon. [Ian Hunter, Equality’s Bloated Bureaucracy, Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 23, 2001.]
The UN is gearing up for a much-ballyhooed meeting to be held this summer in South Africa on “Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.” It is supposed to come up with a comprehensive action plan to rid the world of wickedness, and the regional conferences held to prepare for the grand finale have duly degenerated into Third-World attacks on the West. The Asian group kicked out Australia and New Zealand, which ended up in the European group. The Africans insisted on making the trans-Atlantic slave trade the centerpiece of the conference, and are demanding that it be declared a crime against humanity. They also want reparations.
In a rare display of backbone, the Americans and Europeans have refused, saying they will not call the slave trade a crime against humanity because that would be an admission of guilt that could lead to legal claims. The Bush administration and some European governments have even said if slavery of more than 100 years ago is the central theme rather than abuses of today, they will not attend the conference. Some Africans say the conference would be better off without them. [Stumbles Galore in Walk-Up to U.N. Racism Conference, Foxnews. com, May 22, 2001.]
Hispanics are now the largest ethnic group in Dallas, Texas, accounting for 36 percent of the population. It now appears that the City Council will do away with the Presidents Day holiday — observed on the third Monday of February — and replace it with César Chávez Day, to be celebrated on March 31. “It is time that we start recognizing the contributions of people of color,” council member John Loza explains. Dallas is therefore poised to be the first Texas city to make a holiday for the Mexican farm-worker organizer. Tarrant County and El Paso County already give their employees a holiday on Chávez Day. [Dave Michaels, Chávez Holiday Likely: Dallas Would Cut Presidents Day, Dallas Morning News, May 17, 2001.]
La Vida Loca
Twenty-seven percent of whites, 16 percent of blacks, and only 11 percent of Hispanics own firearms. An anti-gun group called the Violence Policy Center finds that despite their low gun-ownership rates, Hispanics are second only to blacks in rates of firearm injury and death. On a per capita basis Hispanics are three times more likely than whites to be hurt or killed with a gun, and their assailants are overwhelmingly other Hispanics. [Karen Brock, Gun Violence Research Overlooks Hispanics, Buffalo News, May 27, 2001.]
No Penis, No Peace
Police in Nigeria have been dealing with a case of mass hysteria that has resulted in at least twelve people being “necklaced” (burned to death by setting fire to a gasoline-filled tire put around their necks) for making people’s genitals disappear. The killing began in the town of Ilesa, where a Christian evangelical sect calling itself the Brotherhood of the Cross had gathered for its annual convention. While members of the sect were preaching door-to-door, someone claimed they had made his penis disappear. An angry mob attacked the Brotherhood, burning eight of them to death, along with two buses and a car. There have been similar incidents in the Nigerian state of Oyo, where six people were burnt to death in March. [Mannir Dan-Ali, “Missing’ Penis Sparks Mob Lynching, BBC, April 12, 2001.]
|LETTERS FROM READERS|
Sir — In your June essay you explain how to counter charges of “racism,” but I say racism is good! It is like family feeling and patriotism. It is based on gene preservation. Ask an anti-racist why he gives preference to his own children. I remember that “liberal” once roused emotions different from those it does today, and suspect that “racist” will some day flip the other way.
Roger G. Garst, Northbrook, Ill.
Sir — Regarding your excellent lead article in the June issue of AR, I have discovered through international Internet exchanges how little confidence many Scandinavians have in their racial identity. Among the older generation, and among Danes and Finns, a racial backlash may be brewing as non-white crime increases. The Swedes and Norwegians, however, show great outward enthusiasm for race-mixing. At the same time they are most inclined to heap scorn on Americans. What better way to protest American hegemony than to point out that Uncle Sam’s long history of racism makes him morally unfit to rule the world? Other Americans who participate in these Internet discussions often appear embarrassed by the racial “failures” of our country, agree that “all people are exactly alike,” and admit that “the failures of non-whites must ultimately be the fault of whites.”
Ivan Hild, Falls Church, Virginia
Sir — The May issue included a letter from Ed Delahanty responding to an earlier letter by Ronald Satz stating that Jews are “just as Caucasian” as the Irish, French, British, and Germans. Mr. Delahanty, while admitting that Jews are Caucasians, correctly points out that the Asian branch of the Caucasian race — which includes Iranians, Arabs, and Indians — differs considerably from European whites. He also pointed out that European and American Jews have, at least statistically, a significant admixture of “Asian Caucasoid” parentage (the same is true for several other European groups such as the Greeks).
However, Mr. Delahanty is quite incorrect in implying that American and European Jews are primarily “Asian Caucasoids.” European Jews plainly resemble the populations they live among far more closely than they resemble Jews living in Asian countries. Imagine that someone randomly selected 100 Jews from France, Austria and Poland, and 100 Christians from the same countries, and 100 Iranian Jews and 100 Iranian Moslems, dressed them alike and put them in a room. Most of the time you could tell the Iranians from the Europeans by their physical appearance, but it would be hard to distinguish European Jews from the European Christians. The cultural gulf between European Jews and Asian Caucasoids is even greater than the physical differences.
There is a far more important issue here. As the readers of AR know, Euro-American civilization — our marvelous civilization with all its outstanding accomplishments — is under siege. Rather than fight among ourselves as to which of us are “more European,” all European and American whites who wish to preserve our civilization and the conditions that enabled it to flourish should join together to protect it — and ourselves — against our common adversaries.
Michael Hart, Crofton, Md.
Sir — There is an error in the story about Haiti in your April issue. You mention a US Rep. Connie Meek (D-FL) as leading a protest. This person was probably Rep. Carrie Meek, of Dade County (which includes Miami). She is black, and likely to lead a protest.
Jerry Prater, Cross City, Florida
Sir — I wanted to let you know that reading AR has been among the most enlightening experiences of my life. Thanks to AR and Chronicles, I now understand that “diversity” is nothing more than a racial power grab by minorities. I read in one of your essays that minority supervisors are likely to hire people of the same race. Where I work, they’re gung-ho on minority supervisors, and in the department next to mine with a black supervisor, 17 of 18 employees are black. The one white girl was hired before the black took over.
“Diversity” is more than a demand for equality. It is the desire to run the show in accordance with the black world view. After three years working here, it is obvious that different races think differently. It had always been drummed into me that everyone is the same except for skin color. Thanks to your magazine, I now see I had been deceived for many years. AR keeps me informed about race, and how it affects the future of our nation.
Stephen S. Johnson, Chamblee, Ga.
Sir — Please remove me from your mailing list. I no longer subscribe to the viewpoints of your magazine. I find it difficult for me to base race on an individual’s IQ. There are many Caucasian people who are extremely retarded!! I have been taking stand-up comedy classes. Many of my comedy friends are African American. I can totally understand where they are coming from. I find white people to have more of an attitude, with their excessive greed and contribution to urban sprawl. I have done a lot of praying and plan to convert to Buddhism. I have also found myself to be bisexual, and take offense to anyone who puts down the gay community. I have learned a lot about myself this past year and discovered much to the dark side of life. To judge people based on race is a dead end.
Name withheld by editor