|American Renaissance magazine|
|Vol. 15, No. 4||April 2004|
Racial Heresies for the 21st Century
What the Non-Racial Right Thinks
Science Strikes Back
O Tempora, O Mores!
Google’s Double Standard
Letters from Readers
Racial Heresies for the 21st Century
2004 conference draws a record turnout.
More than 260 people gathered at the Hyatt Dulles hotel in northern Virginia over the weekend of Feb. 20-22 for the 2004 American Renaissance conference. Guests came from all parts of the United States, as well as Canada, Britain, France, and even South Africa and Australia to make it the best-attended AR conference ever. From beginning to end, there was an invigorating sense of solidarity and conviviality, as AR celebrated the tenth anniversary of its first meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. As one participant put it, “it’s great to be among the living again.”
The conference began on Friday evening with a cocktail reception and welcoming remarks by the AR staff. Jared Taylor provoked much hilarity by challenging the spy from the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League who always attends AR conferences to reveal himself. “Why do you sneak around like a thief?” he asked. “We know you’re here, so I’m giving you an opportunity to do something honorable and manly, and identify yourself.” The spy remained silent.
Afterwards, conference guests socialized late into the evening, enjoying the camaraderie that marked the entire weekend.
On Saturday morning, syndicated columnist Samuel Francis began with an analysis of white resistance to racial consciousness. He reported that many of his correspondents say there can be no significant racial differences in behavior because the genomes of different races differ by only a fraction of a percent. Others argue that racial differences are meaningless because all people have a common African origin. One of his readers claimed we are all black because we came from Africa; Dr. Francis commented that this was like claiming we are all fish because we once came from the ocean.
Some of Dr. Francis’s readers quote Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Dr. Francis remarked that people who like this passage do not seem to realize it could be used to undermine the case for the state of Israel and even defend homosexual marriage.
Some readers do not believe a white race even exists, that we are instead a diverse collection of Frenchmen, Poles, Lithuanians, and so on. It is a mystery to Dr. Francis why national identities are acceptable, but a racial identity is not. Another common argument is that whites should deny themselves racial consciousness because it leads to the unique wickedness of the Holocaust and slavery. Dr. Francis noted that in the long sweep of history that includes Mongol and Muslim attacks on Europe, it is only very recently that whites started killing more non-whites than the other way around.
Conservatives often say they are afraid where racial consciousness would lead, imagining slaughter and slavery rather than immigration reform. “All you have to do is ring the bell, and conservatives salivate the way the leftists trained them,” he said, noting that the history of egalitarianism is much bloodier than that of in-egalitarianism. These arguments are so flimsy they must surely be a cover for “irrational and emotional fixations,” he said. They show that whites “are willing to grasp at any straw to deny the reality of our problems.”
Paul Fromm, president of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee and the Canadian Association for Free Expression, announced that his two overriding concerns were immigration and free speech because in Canada there is too much of one and too little of the other. Almost 12 percent of Canada’s population is from the Third World, and if immigration and fertility rates stay constant, Canada will lose its white majority about the same time as the United States, in the middle of this century. Canada accepts about 235,000 immigrants every year, or almost twice as many per capita as the United States. Eighty-five percent are from the Third World, and this has brought profound demographic change: Toronto, for example, was one percent non-white in 1961, but is more than 60 percent non-white today.
It can be dangerous to criticize this process. Mr. Fromm pointed to the case of Brad Love, who was sentenced under hate speech laws to 18 months in prison for writing rude letters to politicians about immigration.
Politicians and the media insist that Canada has always been multicultural, but until recently, there was no question that Canada was a country for Europeans. Robert Borden, prime minister from 1911-1920 said bluntly that it was a white man’s country. Canada’s traditional flag, the Red Ensign, bears the coats of arms of the British, French, and other European pioneers. The maple leaf flag, which Mr. Fromm likened to a modern corporate logo, was adopted in 1965.
The current immigration minister has said she does not see herself as a gate-keeper, but as a facilitator and social worker. Asylum seekers automatically get welfare until their cases are heard, and Canada grants asylum to women with abusive husbands, and homosexuals from macho cultures. Forty-five percent of these immigrants cannot speak English or French, which means they probably cannot be employed.
Mr. Fromm also suggested Oriental immigrants are forming a fifth column in Canada and reducing Canadians’ control over their country. They already own a great deal of real estate, and they are in the process of buying Air Canada.
University of Delaware history professor Raymond Wolters marked the 50th anniversary year of Brown v Board of Education by noting that American schools have gone from desegregation to forced integration and then back to desegregation. Although the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was written by men who plainly supported school segregation, NAACP attorneys managed to convince the Supreme Court through historical and legal deception that the equal protection clause required desegregation. Still, the Brown decision did not require forcible integration; it merely prohibited schools from refusing admission to students because of race. Little changed after Brown. Most schools remained overwhelmingly white or black because Americans preferred it that way.
This did not satisfy civil rights activists, who thought segregation harmed black students. So, in 1968, the Court held that Brown required school districts that had discriminated in the past to correct this by promoting integration. Busing did not have the intended effect: Black academic performance failed to improve, and whites never accepted school assignment by race. Districts that required integration lost an average of 50 percent of their students to white flight. In the 1990s, the Rehnquist court returned to the original understanding of Brown, and schools once again reflect neighborhood segregation.
Prof. Wolters also described the role of academics in school integration. Intellectuals are overwhelmingly on the left, and their writing “combines righteous indignation with emotional commitment.” They reward mediocre scholars who praise integration, and punish excellent scholars who criticize it.
The NAACP hired several historians to argue that the 14th Amendment required desegregation. They duly prepared papers to support this claim, even though the evidence was against it. Three have since admitted their fraud, conceding that they let politics distort their perspective, but this has in no way hurt their careers.
Psychologist Kenneth Clark provided the social rationale for the Brown case with his notorious doll studies that claimed to show blacks suffered psychological damage from segregation. These studies were later discredited — if anything, they showed integration damaged blacks — but they played a large role in winning the Brown case, and Clark enjoyed an extremely successful academic career. Kenneth Coleman, a sociologist who produced thorough and sound work demonstrating that integration lowered the quality of white education without raising that of blacks, suffered a long period of academic isolation, and some colleagues even likened him to a Nazi.
The next address was by Philip du Toit, president of the Zimbabwe Victims’ Coalition. He has just published a book about South Africa’s “land restitution,” and argues that agriculture is headed for collapse because blacks are incapable of modern farming. He described the great suffering that has followed the transfer of power to blacks in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Blacks have killed 1,600 white farmers in South Africa since black rule began in 1994, making farming in South Africa the most dangerous peace-time occupation in the world. The killings have scared many whites off their farms; in ten years their numbers have dropped from 56,000 to 35,000. Squatters steal from them and kill their cattle, but the incompetent South African police catch only an estimated 10 percent of career criminals. Commercial farmers also must pay high taxes. Dr. du Toit showed a film about the farm killings, in which one expert claimed this could be the beginning of full-scale genocide. At the same time, the black government now practices such ruthless preferences it is practically impossible for whites to get scholarships, and job prospects are increasingly dim. Now that the schools are black-run, many black 8th-graders cannot read.
In Zimbabwe, the eviction of 4,000 farmers has brought disaster. More than 150,000 black farm workers have lost their jobs, and the economy is on the rocks. Mr. du Toit ended his speech with a call for more international cooperation among whites.
Jack Loggenberg of the Transvaal Agricultural Union continued the discussion of South Africa. The goals of his organization are to protect the willing seller-willing buyer principle of property exchange, to ensure the maintenance of South Africa’s food and fiber production, and to ensure that commercial farmers are able to live without fear of theft and violence.
Mr. Loggenberg spoke not only about the physical, but the psychological aspects of the current campaign against South African whites, which is meant to destroy their sense of peoplehood. Blacks in authority call whites “colonialists,” “invaders,” and “land-grabbers,” discredit their heroes, and tear down their monuments. Cities, towns, streets, and buildings once named for whites are now renamed for black “freedom fighters.” White children must attend integrated schools that actively try to stamp out any aspect of European culture or achievement, and that have pushed out Christianity in favor of some vague universal religion. Mr. Loggenberg also stressed the importance of world-wide white solidarity.
Author and history professor Roger McGrath described the decline of the white hero in American culture. Before the 1960s, Americans revered statesmen and warriors like Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and Teddy Roosevelt, and exaggerated their virtues; now these men are criminals. Washington owned slaves; Jefferson slept with them; Jackson uprooted Indians; Roosevelt proclaimed white superiority. Just as in South Africa, the names of white icons are coming down. Prof. McGrath gave the example of a majority-black elementary school in New Orleans, that changed its name from Washington because Washington owned slaves. Noting the school’s terrible student performance, he said it may be just as well that it no longer bears Washington’s name.
Lincoln has survived as a hero because he liberated the slaves, and cultural Marxists downplay his conviction of Negro inferiority and opposition to integration. The left loves Lincoln because he destroyed Southern culture, increased the power of the federal government, and created “the secular religion of egalitarianism.”
Prof. McGrath spoke admiringly of the masculine virtues of the great American statesmen who are now so despised. He praised Washington’s military acumen and Andrew Jackson’s bravery in duels. He spoke reverently of World War II heroes, like Audie Murphy and Colin Kelly, and deplored the fact that they are not even mentioned in today’s history books. Strength and courage in white men are today called “militarism” and “fascism.” “It is difficult not to conclude,” he said, “that authors and publishers fear portraying white men in a heroic light, because such portrayals just might inspire boys today to behave in a manner admired by their ancestors.”
There followed three brief presentations by activists. Perry Lorenz described his campaign for the Fort Collins, Colorado school board, in which he pointed out it was unrealistic to expect schools to close the achievement gap between white and black students because of innate differences. There was the predictable outcry, but he still won over 20 percent of the vote. Gordon Baum, CEO of the Council of Conservative Citizens, noted that today’s young people are much more racially conscious than their parents. He says the Confederate flag is increasingly popular among young men. Lou Calabro, president of the European/American Issues Forum, described a photo exhibit called “European Americans Among Us” that he had put on at the San Francisco Public Library to encourage pride in white achievement.
The cocktail reception before the Saturday evening banquet was serenaded by the dance band, The Nitehawks. Conference guests were pleasantly surprised by Jared Taylor’s solid clarinet and saxophone performances in swing classics like “Song of India” and “American Patrol.”
After the banquet on Saturday night, columnist and author Joseph Sobran spoke on “The Alien State.” He said America is going through a “statist revolution” on the pretext that it must pass regulations to protect us. “If you think the state wants to protect us,” he said, “look at Waco!” Regulations serve only to control our lives, and one of the primary vehicles of such control is “minority rights.” The state uses its mandate to protect minorities to limit our freedom of association and to control the way we speak and think. “The term ‘minority’ is not a matter of numbers,” he said. “It’s a moral claim.” The government has become so obnoxiously intrusive that a conspiratorial view of the world is justified: “It isn’t crazy to be paranoid about the government,” he said. “What’s crazy is to trust it.” The state’s attitude towards minorities is driven by a philosophy of “alienism,” or the prejudice that the abnormal is always to be preferred to the normal. He elaborated on homosexual and Jewish activism as examples of this trend.
Jared Taylor began the Sunday morning session on a note of optimism. He said the common view was that whites have no right to pursue racial interests but saw many signs of white revolt. He saw nascent racial consciousness in the widespread indignation over the Bush amnesty proposal. Americans say they oppose it because it rewards law-breakers, but deep-down there is a racial fear that America will become Mexico if we let in too many Hispanics.
There are much clearer signs of racial awakening in Europe, where there are strong nationalist political parties. The Swiss People’s Party, whose campaign posters showed dark hands tearing up a Swiss flag, is now the most popular in the country. Russian politics is solidly nationalist: not only is Vladimir Putin’s party nationalist by American standards, but the number two and number three parties are even more so.
Events in Holland are particularly heartening. Holland has had one of the most liberal immigration policies in Europe, but in January, parliament issued an all-party report saying that the attempt to create an integrated multi-ethnic society had failed. The Dutch were delighted when the government recently announced it would deport 26,000 bogus asylum seekers. The city of Rotterdam will no longer issue residence permits to anyone who doesn’t speak Dutch, and will build no more cheap housing. These measures are openly described as designed to keep out immigrants. Denmark is another encouraging example.
Political progress is more rapid in Europe because of proportional representation, which makes it easier for small parties to gain influence. Mr. Taylor also saw a “virtuous cycle” developing in Europe. When one country closes its doors to immigrants or expels them, they try to get in elsewhere, which prompts other countries to restrict immigration.
Psychologist Donald Templer followed with a scathing and hilarious attack on the blindness of his profession. He has been fascinated by group differences ever since he was a child, and this interest has shaped his academic career. He says denying group differences in ability is costly because it puts unqualified blacks in positions of authority. Whites are twenty times more likely than blacks to have IQs of 130 or above, and these are the people who should be decision-makers.
“There are too many psychologists who poison the minds of their students,” said Prof. Templer. By refusing to acknowledge innate intelligence differences, psychologists encourage white guilt that weakens a psychologist’s capacity to deal with the social problems that blacks pose. Also, it is absurd to blame test bias for low IQ scores. “If blacks score low on an intelligence test,” said Prof. Templer, “I would say that constitutes powerful evidence for its validity.” Many psychologists enjoy giving racial sensitivity training, but it would be much more useful if they treated white guilt. Many psychologists recommend psychological therapy for black prisoners, but Prof. Templer disagrees: “They need 60 hours a week of work therapy. That would give them less time for manufacturing alcohol and weapons, trafficking drugs, and giving each other AIDS.”
Prof. Templer was just as scathing about the grievances of blacks against whites. Many claim high incarceration rates are genocide because they prevent blacks from having children. In Prof. Templer’s view, “the reduced procreation of criminals of all colors is a beneficial side effect of incarceration . . . If imprisoning criminals is genocide, then I am for genocide.” If Americans are serious about deterring crime, they should farm criminals out to Third World and Communist countries “that have real prisons and real punishment.”
Sam Dickson concluded the conference with “A Secular Benediction,” in which he lambasted the “silly right.” The conservatives currently in power “major in the minors and minor in the majors,” devoting their energy to insignificant problems and ignoring things of vital importance. The Bush administration did not breathe a word of protest at the Supreme Court’s decisions on racial preferences last year, and its amnesty plan would only make the immigration crisis worse. There has also been little protest against the Supreme Court’s limitations on political advertisements, which diminish the power of minority political movements. The only issue on which the silly right has taken a strong conservative stand is homosexual marriage, a trivial problem compared to the non-white invasion.
Americans have been duped by the silly right into thinking America must police the Middle East. The costs of war, together with the forces of decay within America could precipitate a disaster, but such a disaster might doom multiracialism and globalism and set America on a sounder course. Mr. Dickson also disagreed with libertarians who think limiting government will solve our problems. Solutions will require the extensive and vigorous use of government powers.
Mr. Dickson concluded by urging whites to greater solidarity. Although he admired individualism when he was younger, he has since come to see it as a weakness. A healthy person is grounded in the broader life of his people and aware of its history. When an entire people faces problems, they cannot be dealt with individually but must be faced collectively. As an example, he proposed that “if more whites contributed a little bit of money to organizations like AR, they wouldn’t have to spend a lot of money on private schools.”
The conference adjourned with many participants expressing the wish that the event be held every year. The next day, there was an article about the meeting in the Washington Times, and the Indonesian newspaper Suara Pembaruan covered the conference for the second time in a row. An independent film crew from Boston that is making a documentary on immigration reform filmed the talks and interviewed many people in the audience.
We are deeply grateful to all our readers who attended the conference, and who made it such a success. We look forward to seeing you again when we hold the next conference in 2006.
What the Non-Racial Right Thinks
Patrick Buchanan’s American Cause conference.
By interesting coincidence, Patrick Buchanan held his most recent meeting on immigration just a few days after the AR conference. Since the mid-1990s, his tax-exempt American Cause has put on events that are billed as “bring[ing] the brightest minds together to explore the ideas that make America a great nation” (see AR, Nov. 2002 for a report on an earlier meeting). This year, under the theme of “Exporting Jobs, Importing Workers,” the brightest minds were trying to think of ways to save the country from destruction.
This was an interesting contrast to the AR conference: an energetic gathering of “mainstream” immigration control groups that never talk about race. It is instructive to take the temperature of the non-racial right on immigration, and if this group is any indication, the temperature is rising.
Protectionism was a very strong sub-theme at this conference. Jock Nash, who is a trade negotiation lawyer for the Milliken textile company, made no bones about the need to manage trade to America’s advantage. He pointed out that in February, the United States lost manufacturing jobs for the 43rd month in a row, and others argued that if this continues, we will eventually be buying even our weapons from China. When it comes to trade, “we don’t want a level playing field,” he said. “We want a home court advantage.” He said America should always come first: “I don’t care what happens in Mexico or Sri Lanka or Cambodia. America first, our friends next, and everyone else, get in line.”
Speaker after speaker echoed this theme. Pat Choate, who was Ross Perot’s running mate in 1996, said the only way to balance our trade with China was to refuse to let in any more imports. Richard McCormack, editor of Manufacturing & Technology News said the Europeans have straightforward quotas on Chinese imports and we should, too.
There was less agreement on how to keep American companies from paying people in India and China next to nothing to do computer programming, web page design, mechanical drawings, and even X-ray diagnosis and architectural design over the Internet. Some panelists could not see how this could be stopped, but William Hawkins, an economist at the US Business and Industry Council and the author of Importing Revolution, said wages paid to workers outside the country should not qualify as business expenses for tax purposes. Mr. Choate proposed an “equalization tax” on such wages that would bring them up to the level paid to Americans.
It is all very well to fiddle with tariffs and taxes, but no one pointed out that, aside from natural resources, the wealth of a country depends on the productivity of its people. America will continue to be wealthy only if its people continue to be good at inventing things, making things, and offering first-rate services. It takes smart people to do that. As Richard Lynn has shown in IQ and the Wealth of Nations, rich countries get that way because their people are intelligent. Trade policy will make no difference if the United States keeps importing prolific Third-Worlders who cannot be trained for high-productivity jobs.
If, at the same time, it keeps taxing the competent to subsidize reckless procreation by incompetents, its population will eventually be no good at anything. If we ever deteriorate to the point where the average American is no more intelligent or hard-working than the average Filipino, we will have the same average income — and deserve it. Whether we import them or breed them ourselves, untrainable dullards will be poor, untrainable dullards, and drag the rest of us down with them.
There was much hand-wringing about China at this conference, but no one pointed out that it has already passed stiff laws that prohibit criminals and defectives from having children (they will no doubt be the next groups to be granted asylum in the US and Canada). As soon as the cost of embryo selection goes down, the Chinese will have no scruples about using it, and if they build up to an average IQ of 115 while we drop into the 80s, they will dominate us in every way.
As Mark Twain used to say, nothing astonishes people more than to tell them the truth. It would have been great fun to astonish the American Cause, but no one who has ever spoken at an AR conference was invited to speak.
When it comes to the question of importing workers, the panelists agreed: it has to stop. Because this conference was about the economic effects of immigration, little was said about the cultural consequences of immigration, much less the racial impact, but there were still interesting differences in emphasis.
The one area of agreement was that Third-World immigration most hurts blue-collar workers. Some speakers, such as Roy Beck of Numbers USA, turned this into an appeal even Hillary Clinton might respond to: He called our immigration policies “a war against workers, a war against blacks, a war against Hispanics.” He argued that blacks have been repeatedly knocked off the ladder of success by repeated waves of immigrants desperate for work. At a more general level, he said a society like ours that is replacing well-paid factory jobs with low-paid service jobs has “an immoral system,” and that “clean-hand workers” like the participants at the conference had a responsibility to fellow citizens who have no more than a high-school education.
John Templeton, a science journalist and the only black at the conference, pushed this argument specifically for blacks: Blue-collar brothers have to compete with low-rent Mexicans. However, he was much more interested in what whites are up to, larding his talk with plenty of references to segregation and “racism.” He seems to think the H1B visa program, which lets employers bring in foreigners to do specialized work, has been a great way for Silicon Valley companies to avoid hiring blacks! Every year, he publishes something called the “Silicon Ceiling Report,” in which he complains about how few blacks have good jobs in the computer industry. He did concede that as companies send jobs overseas “white men have become commodities, too.” In answer to a question as to why Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do not talk about low-wage Mexicans taking away jobs from blacks, he said that “their funding sources won’t let them.” Judging from Mr. Templeton’s own emphasis, there may simply be more fun and profit in complaining about rich white people rather than poor Hispanics.
K.B. Forbes, Executive Director of the Council of United Latinos, had another ethnic perspective. He described himself as the “token Hispanic” at the conference, but is half-Irish and half-Chilean, and looks European. He takes seriously Mr. Beck’s view that massive immigration really is “a war on blacks, a war on Hispanics,” and is trying to persuade Hispanics that immigration will only drive down their wages. He insisted that many Hispanics are against the Bush amnesty — 45 percent, which is not far behind the 55 percent for the country as a whole. He tries to publicize cases like that of the Salvadoran car mechanic who was happy making $10.00 an hour, but was fired when two illegal Koreans showed up, willing to work for $4.50 an hour each. He conceded that, so far, there is not much sign of Hispanic resistance to immigration, but claimed that many Hispanics are completely “red, white and blue” and that Hispanic opposition to immigration is a “sleeping giant” beginning to stir. He seemed entirely sincere — he got a good round of applause when he said all illegals must be rounded up and deported immediately — and if he can get Hispanics more interested in higher pay than ethnic solidarity, good for him.
On the question of what to do about illegals, some of the speakers were firm and some were squishy, but all were on the right side. Steven Camarota, who spoke for the reasonably high-profile Center for Immigration Studies, had something of a technical approach. He pointed out that the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) already has a backlog of six million cases, and would be paralyzed by the 10 million or so applications a Bush amnesty would bring. He is not in favor of outright deportation of illegals, arguing that if employer sanctions really do dry up the job supply, illegals will go home on their own. He also opposes putting soldiers on the border because they are bound to shoot somebody. Since “we make public policy by pathetic anecdote,” he said, a few dead Mexicans could discredit the whole idea of firm border control. No one pointed out that the threat of being shot would be enough to close the border. It might take a few shootings for the threat to be taken seriously, but that would pretty much solve the problem.
(Mr. Camarota did make the excellent point that immigrants are not going to save Social Security. Most of them earn low wages, pay few taxes, and consume social services. Also, what Social Security really needs is an increase in the ratio of workers to retired people, but many immigrants bring in their aged parents, who never paid a dime in taxes, and they will, themselves, grow old and go on Social Security.)
T.J. Bonner, the head of the border patrol agents union, had a similar perspective on illegals. He thinks it is hopeless to try to stop them all at the border and then pay no attention once they get in. He said if the country really wanted to solve the problem only by patrolling the border, it would need one million agents, rather than the current 11,000. He said all police departments must treat illegal entry as the crime that it is, and that we must prosecute employers who hire illegals. He said the best way for companies to avoid hiring them is to look hard at Hispanics who don’t speak English, but they can’t do that because that would be “discrimination.”
The Bush amnesty proposal has made his job harder. Apprehensions in some sectors rose 30 percent after the announcement, and Mr. Bonner said some who are caught immediately ask, “How do I sign up for the new amnesty?” He doesn’t want soldiers on the border because he says they don’t have the right training.
Pat Choate was the squishiest on Mexico. He said that because it is our neighbor it is “special,” and we should do everything possible to raise its standard of living. We should build factories there rather than in India or China (or Pennsylvania?) even if the profits are lower, so as to give Mexicans good jobs. Dan Stein of the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) got a good round of applause when he retorted that the only way to handle Mexico is to seal the border.
Three-term congressman from Colorado Tom Tancredo was the keynote speaker. He is a very important figure who has almost single-handedly made a national political issue out of immigration, so it is worth examining his remarks in detail. He laughed at the Bush amnesty proposal, calling it “dead on arrival.” He said that in his five years in Congress he has never seen so vigorous a popular reaction against a proposal. All his Republican and even some Democratic colleagues say they are swamped with mail from outraged constituents. At Republican leadership retreats, he used to be the only congressman who would talk about immigration, but at the most recent retreat he said he didn’t have to say anything; 15 or 20 others were yelling about the amnesty.
He told about one Southern congressman who is a gynecologist and still has a practice. He got a big laugh when he imitated a thick Southern accent, and quoted his colleague: “I have done an informal poll of my patients and have found that amnesty is about as popular as genital herpes.”
Mr. Tancredo said he cannot understand how Mr. Bush thought his plan would win Hispanic votes. “The very next day, the Democrats did what they always do, they outbid us, and said we should give them instant green cards.” Mr. Tancredo believes immigration “is a dagger pointed at our hearts,” that the influx, both legal and illegal, combined with multiculturalism, threatens the identity of the country. He said instruction in school is anti-American, and that our children “should know a little more about Western Civilization than that Columbus came to America and destroyed paradise.” He called the Mexican government a “co-conspirator” in the threat to America, and talked about a Mexican official who explained to him that “it’s not two countries; it’s just a region.”
He said almost no one in Congress stands for anything except being reelected. When people accuse him of “having an agenda,” he says of course he has an agenda, and that no one should be in Congress who doesn’t have one. He said it has been “a wonderful experience” to be a politician with a real purpose, who works for what he truly believes is best for the country. He said he used to be sympathetic when colleagues told him they admired what he says but can’t do the same, but now he has no patience. “Either you care about your country or you don’t,” he says. Mr. Tancredo is all for putting soldiers on the border. He is thinking about running for the Senate, and says he will campaign for two things: a moratorium on all immigration, and no amnesty, ever.
The tenor of the immigration debate would change completely if there were just a few more members of Congress who took Mr. Tancredo’s positions and pushed them as hard as he does. He was an ebullient, effective speaker, and began and ended with a standing ovation. He is also quite approachable. He spent 20 minutes after his talk, chatting and laughing with admirers, and gives an impression of sincere bonhomie. He had used Samuel Huntington’s expression “clash of civilizations” in his talk, so I asked if he meant there was a civilizational clash between Mexico and the United States. He gave me a quizzical look and said no. The clash of civilizations was between Islam and the West, but if America is disunited because of ethnic identification it will not be able to respond to the challenge.
Patrick Buchanan spoke last, and struck an optimistic note. This is “the darkest hour before the dawn,” he said, adding that “the people are with us, and the politicians are beginning to listen.” He regretted that 12 or 14 years ago, when he was running for president, the mood of the country was not what it is today. He was glad to see that the Bush amnesty appears to be dead. He said the by-elections two years from now may be a good chance to put up third-party candidates against sitting congressmen who refuse to understand immigration. He concluded with a confident prediction that “the people who love this country for what it is will prevail over those who think it’s just a place to make money.”
He was not the only speaker to say the mood in the country is changing. Dan Stein predicted that “we are about to see a tsunami” of opposition to immigration, and said it “will be about the hottest topic in politics once we get gay marriage taken care of.” Several others spoke of Congress finally taking notice.
The audience — at about 150, it was perhaps a record for an American Cause meeting — likewise seemed upbeat and energetic. As is always the case at meetings of this kind, it was to the right of the speakers. Every firm sentiment got applause, and one man kept shouting “lock and load, lock and load.” A half-dozen participants introduced themselves to me as AR readers, and many others gladly accepted introductory copies of the magazine. There is no doubt that more and more Americans are seeing the light; perhaps as Mr. Buchanan said, the dawn is not far off.
What are we to make of the non-racial immigration-control movement? Its leaders are certainly well meaning, and they are able to carry their message to audiences that cover their ears when we talk about race. There is no doubt that some people find an economic or cultural argument more palatable. Nor should we sneer at Roy Beck’s pitch to liberals about how immigration hurts blacks and Hispanics. If he can interest Hillary Clinton in helping blacks by keeping out immigrants, God bless him. His is a very useful lobbying organization that makes it easy for people to stay in touch with their congressmen and that reports on every member’s vote on every bill that touches on immigration.
Is there really as much anti-immigrant sentiment among Hispanics as K.B. Forbes claims? If there is, it is probably based on the contempt many Cubans and South Americans feel for Mexican prune pickers, but why not harness it if it is there?
We should never lose sight of the fact that anyone who opposes immigration — for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all — is our ally. To oppose immigration is, in effect, to oppose the displacement of whites by non-whites. Displacement is the greatest threat today to our race, and we must support and encourage anyone who works against it, whatever his motives. It may be that when real immigration reform passes, it will be sold to Congress as a loving gesture to our black and Hispanic brothers and sisters. That would still be a great achievement.
We, of course, have no reason to shift our emphasis. The immigration-control movement is full of people who, themselves, never talk about race but are happy for others to, and whose commitment is fueled by the knowledge that there is far more at stake than blue-collar jobs. Our ranks are growing steadily, and ultimately, only a fully-formed consciousness of race will save our civilization. In the meantime, let us applaud the efforts of the mainstream right.
Science Strikes Back
An antidote to fashionable nonsense about race.
Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele, Race: The Reality of Human Differences, Westview Press, 2004, 287 pp., $27.50.
Sociologists, anthropologists, and television commentators tell us that race is biologically meaningless, that the physical differences between Danes and Pygmies are insignificant evolutionary accidents. Race, we are told, is an artificial concept white people invented only a few hundred years ago to justify colonization and slavery. If we free ourselves from this delusion, we can all march hand in hand into a future free of “racism.”
Everything about this view of race is obviously wrong, but since so few of the people who know better are willing to say so, this nonsense is beginning to tighten its grip on the popular mind. Now a book has finally appeared that blows to bits every one of these tendentious arguments. Race is a long overdue corrective that deserves wide circulation.
An Instinct to Distinguish
Authors Vincent Sarich, emeritus professor of anthropology at Berkeley and Frank Miele, senior editor of Skeptic magazine, take aim first at the notion that it was 16th and 17th century Europeans who first noticed race and race differences. As the authors point out, humans appear to share with dogs, baboons, wolves, and killer whales an instinctive ability to distinguish their own group from outsiders. Three-year old children sort people by race without being taught to. Therefore, every human population that ever had contact with foreigners seems to have noticed racial differences, and most did not like funny-looking strangers.
Egyptian tomb paintings clearly differentiate four racial groups: Egyptians, Asiatic Semites, Caucasians, and sub-Saharan Africans. Nor are these simple depictions of physical characteristics to which the Egyptians were indifferent. The Twelfth Dynasty Pharaoh Sesostris III (c. 1887–1849 BC) wrote that blacks were dishonorable cowards, “poor and faint-hearted.” He even erected a stele at the southern boundary of Lower Egypt which still reads: “No negro shall cross this boundary by water or by land, by ship or with his flocks, save for the purpose of trade or to make purchases in some post.”
The Indo-European conquerors of India were light-skinned people who despised their dark-skinned subjects. The authors note that Ancient Vedic texts describing the wars of 1500 to 900 BC record how the Aryans “stormed the ancient cities of the hated broad-nosed Dasas, the dark-skinned worshippers of the phallus.” The word Dasa originally meant “enemy,” then came to mean “dark-faced,” and finally “slave.” The invaders established the caste system, the most elaborate anti-miscegenation program ever put into practice. The Sanscrit word for “caste,” varna, also means “color.”
Arabs launched the earliest slaving missions across the Sahara, and quickly noted racial differences. The Baghdad historian Abu-al-Hasan Masu’di (d. 956) offered a detailed and accurate physical description of blacks, to which he added that they had long penises and were given to merriment. He attributed their cheerfulness to “defective brains.”
The jurist Sa’id al-Andalusi (1029-1070) wrote that blacks “lack self-control and steadiness of mind and are overcome by fickleness, foolishness and ignorance.” He called them “rabble” “savages,” “scum,” and barely human. He didn’t care much for the people to the north either, of whom he wrote:
Their temperaments are therefore frigid, their humors raw, their bellies gross, their color pale, their hair long and lank. Thus they lack keenness of understanding and clarity of intelligence, and are overcome by ignorance and dullness, lack of discernment, and stupidity. Such are the Slavs, the Bulgars, and their neighbors.
The 13th century Persian writer Nasir al-Din Tusi thought blacks were animals that walk on two legs: “Many have observed that the ape is more teachable and more intelligent than the Zanj [blacks].” He, too, found them carefree and highly sexed. The greatest of all Arab historians, Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406), wrote: “The only people who accept slavery are the negroes, owing to their low degree of humanity and their proximity to the animal stage.”
Among the Arabs, people of any race could be enslaved, but blacks were associated with the most degrading servitude. White slaves were called mamluk, which means “owned.” Black slaves were ‘abd, which eventually came to mean any black, slave or free. In The Arabian Nights, blacks are almost always shown as slaves or doing menial jobs, and they have prodigious sexual appetites. No ancient group that encountered blacks seems to have liked them. Romans made fun of them, calling them “sima” or monkey-like.
Greek and Roman art works that depict blacks and whites together sometimes show blacks with larger penises, often erect. Herodotus noted the physical characteristics of blacks, especially their “wooly” hair, and Hippocrates speculated that generations of exposure to the sun had burned them black. The ancients realized that racial characteristics were permanent. Jeremiah, for example, asks rhetorically, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?”
Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele note that the Chinese made fun of Caucasians, whom they thought odd-looking, but do not mention that Japanese did the same, inventing a series of “barbarian” words to describe them, such as “red-haired barbarian” and “blue-eyed barbarian.”
One of the book’s most interesting examples of the universal human instinct to characterize people comes from the Kalahari Bushmen. Their DNA is now known to class them with other sub-Saharan Africans, but for many years, anthropologists thought they were related to Asians because of their yellowish color, hooded eyes, and other traits. The Bushmen distinguish themselves not only from whites but also from neighboring blacks. They have one word for edible animals and another for inedible animals — which includes all other human groups. They use zhu or “human” exclusively for themselves. That is, they did until they met Asian anthropologists, whom they immediately called zhu because they thought they looked like Bushmen.
The Age of Exploration did not lead whites to any new racial categorizations to justify “oppression.” Instead, Europeans resisted emerging racial theories that emphasized qualitative differences between the races. Some scholars, for example, wondered if the newly-discovered people of the New World were pre-Adamite, that is, primitives who predated the creation of man. A serious debate within the Catholic church about the nature of American Indians concluded with a 1537 decree by Pope Paul III, officially declaring them fully human and endowed with souls. A finding that they were pre-Adamites would have made it easy to justify slavery or extermination. Civil authorities also declined to accept the view that indigenous peoples were qualitatively different from Europeans and therefore worthy of oppression.
Likewise, the monogenesis/polygenesis debates of the 18th and 19th centuries could have offered support for slavery but were rejected. Polygenists argued that the races were so different they could not have evolved from Adam during the 4,000 or so years recorded in the Bible. A theory of separate origins or creations for the different races might have justified slavery, but Americans preferred the Biblical account of common creation and descent.
So much for the silly notion that no one noticed race until white men tried to cook up excuses for colonization and slavery. Europeans and Americans reacted to race as all people do.
Furthermore, as the authors point out, it was almost universally accepted well into the 20th century not only that race was real but that races were unequal. For example, the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica explains that “the mental constitution of the negro is very similar to that of a child, normally good-natured and cheerful, but subject to sudden fits of emotion and passion during which he is capable of performing acts of singular atrocity . . .” and adds that, “after puberty sexual matters take the first place in the negro’s life and thoughts.”
It was largely the rise of the Franz Boaz school of anthropology that successfully substituted “culture” for biology as the primary force that differentiates human groups. The authors point out that the early Boaz school was composed of people who felt estranged from established American traditions and wanted to undermine them. Boaz himself and many of his early followers were Jews who felt their Jewishness keenly. Israel Ehrenberg, for example, who rebaptized himself as Ashley Montagu, wrote, “If you’re brought up as a Jew, you know that all non-Jews are anti-Semitic . . .”
Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele note that some of Boaz’s most famous gentile followers were also at odds with American society: Margaret Mead was bisexual and Ruth Benedict was lesbian. Thus, “the Boazians shared an out-group sensibility, a commitment to a common viewpoint and a program to dominate the institutional structure of anthropology.” They succeeded brilliantly, with considerable help from the revulsion for Hitler and Nazism that swept America after the war.
Race also goes into subsequent debates about the nature of man, in particular the high-profile skirmishes between Montagu and Carleton Coon, best known for painstaking anthropological work that led him to believe that the races evolved independently and represented different levels of evolution. A biological understanding of human nature fell completely out of favor until it was revived in the 1960s and later, by such people as Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray.
Race Science Today
It is a curious irony that although many people claim to disbelieve in race, society goes on taking it for granted. As Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele point out, no one has trouble telling one race from another, and even in court cases, in which anything can be bitterly contested, no one has ever argued that race is an illusion or is meaningless. In fact, despite decades of litigation over race, courts do not even have a definition for race or a standard for determining it. They accept the common sense view that race is evident to everyone.
Furthermore, this particular “illusion” is proving to have very concrete uses. Police can now easily test DNA samples to determine the race and even the racial mix of a criminal. In Britain, the Forensic Science Service uses DNA for what it calls photofitting, that is to say, to come up with the best estimate of the appearance of a criminal who has left behind a drop of blood or a bit of skin. The British even look for such things as the genetic markers associated with red hair.
Race is likewise important in medicine. Blacks, because of increasingly well-understood physiological reasons, do not get nearly as much benefit from standard hypertension drugs as whites, and studies are now underway to develop drugs specifically for them. Eskimos did not respond to early drugs for tuberculosis because, unlike other racial groups, they metabolized the medicine before it could act. Biological reality is beating back ideologues who argue that race has no medical importance. Prof. Sarich and Mr. Mielealso describe clear racial differences in athletic ability, relying heavily on Jon Entine’s book on race and sports (reviewed in AR, Feb. 2000).
Three of the nine chapters in Race recount the twists and turns along the scientific trail that led to an understanding of when the various lineages of man branched off from each other. This is interesting history, but not germane. Much more significant is what follows: an explanation of the scientific foundations of race.
Practically every discussion of race and biology begins with Richard Lewontin’s famous observation that if all human genetic variation is given a value of 100, 85 percent of this variation is found within races, and only 15 percent more variation is found when different races are added to the mix. This was, indeed, a surprising finding, but does not mean, as Prof. Lewontin slyly implied, that whites are more similar to Asians, say, than to other whites. Nor does it justify Prof. Lewontin’s conclusion, that race is an empty category. What it means is that the 15 percent that differentiates races is a very important 15 percent.
The late Glayde Whitney used to point out that humans and macaque monkeys have similar genomes. If the total genetic diversity of humans plus macaques were given an index of 100 percent, more than half of that diversity would be found in the population of Belfast alone. This does not mean that Irishmen are more similar to macaques than to each other, only that there is significant genetic variation within distinct populations (AR, March 1997).
Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele draw a useful parallel between humans and dogs. Breeds of dogs differ not only in appearance but in temperament and intelligence. Yet, it is almost impossible to tell Great Dane DNA from Pekinese DNA. The huge differences between the breeds are accounted for by tiny genetic differences barely detectable with modern analysis. As with human races, small genetic differences account for very important physical differences.
The authors note that observations about differences in dog breeds are not controversial but observations about humans are. Only after much difficulty did one research team that had published about dogs manage to publish about people. This was a study of behavior of newborns that found interesting racial differences even though the births were in the same hospital from women who received the same pre-natal care. Chinese newborns went to sleep in more or less any position in which they were put down, while whites turned their heads to a more comfortable position. White newborns cried more easily than Chinese and were are harder to console. The most striking difference, however, was in what is called “defensive reaction.” This involves putting a cloth over a baby’s nose and forcing it to breathe through its mouth. White and black babies immediately turned their heads or tried to push the cloth away, whereas Chinese babies lay quietly breathing through their mouths. Navajo newborns have since been found to behave like Chinese newborns, which is not surprising given their lineage.
In nature, any animals that were as different as human races would be different species. Although the evidence now suggests races diverged only 50,000 years ago, their external physical differences are very great. Animals that look as different as Arabs and Bantus do not mate. There are species of gazelle that are so similar they can be distinguished only by experts; they share the same grazing grounds, but do not mix.
Comparisons with monkeys underscore the significance of human races. A series of measurements on skulls yields an index of difference from one population to another. By this measure, human races are as different from each other as are different species of chimpanzee. In fact, a comparison of the most widely divergent human groups, such as Norwegians and Australian Aborigines finds physical differences as great as those between chimpanzees and gorillas.
Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele do not fail to note the importance of these findings:
The amount of variation that took approximately one million years to evolve in chimpanzees took only 50,000 years to evolve in humans. This much shorter time for the evolution of comparatively larger racial differences must mean that these differences are more (not less) significant, and that adaptation, not chance, is the only mechanism capable of explaining this.
The shorter the period of time required to produce a given amount of morphological difference, the more selectively/adaptively/functionally important those differences become.
Human races are very strongly marked morphologically; human races are very young; so much variation developing in so short a period of time implies, indeed almost certainly requires, functionality; there is no good reason to think that behavior should somehow be exempt from this pattern of functional variability.
What this means is that the rapidity with which human groups diverged strongly suggests the divergence was not random genetic drift due to isolation but was adaptation to real evolutionary pressure. Populations do not become as different as Eskimos and Watusis by accident; they are different because the differences are significant and help them survive. And, as Race points out, physical differences as striking as these are not likely to arise without equally striking behavioral differences.
Intelligence is, of course, one of the most crucial race differences, and Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele are not afraid to take it up. They review the findings of racial differences in brain size, noting that it has a 0.4 correlation with tested intelligence. They point out that individuals can vary in brain size by as much as 400 cc — the size of a chimpanzee brain. There are races that differ in average brain size by 300 cc, and show corresponding differences in average intelligence.
Some have argued that there cannot be racial differences in intelligence because it is a crucial aspect of humanity to which all groups would have devoted equal evolutionary effort. This is silly. The authors point out that in terms of metabolic cost, brain tissue is very expensive, so brains would have grown only as a result of tradeoffs with maturation time, size of the birth canal, diversion of blood supply away from other organs, and a host of other factors. It would have been astonishing if all these tradeoffs had turned out identically in populations that show so many other differences. Evolution in brain size — and intelligence — has been very rapid, and was possible only because there is so much variation in these traits. There is variation not just between individuals but between races.
Any thorough racial comparison of IQ runs up against the finding that sub-Saharan Africans have an average of 75. Is the continent really populated by the retarded? Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele point out that in white populations, an IQ this low is usually only one of several serious defects that leave a person incapable of leading a normal life. However, among Africans, IQs of 70 or even lower are simply the result of normal distribution, and can be found among people who are otherwise normal.
An IQ of 75 is, as Race points out, the mental equivalent of a 12-year-old. Twelve-year-olds can drive cars and some can even fix them. Twelve-year-olds can do arithmetic and follow reasonably complex instructions. What they cannot do is run a modern society. As the authors point out, an intelligent population can tolerate a certain number of low-IQ people, but once they reach a certain proportion, the quality and texture of life change completely. This is what we find in many Third-World countries and in those parts of the United States where blacks or Hispanics are dominant.
Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele point out that race is not only a valid category for grouping differing populations; it is a focus of loyalty. They note that people of all races prefer the company of people like themselves, vote for co-racialists, and are more generous with people of their own group. What, then, are we to make of race once it is accepted as a significant biological and social reality?
Race offers three choices: meritocracy, continued leveling through race preferences, and separation into ethnostates. The authors support meritocracy: They want an end to all legal and administrative consideration of race, with employers and colleges free to make decisions strictly on merit. Presumably they support repeal of all anti-discrimination laws, which would leave businesses free to choose their customers and home-owners their neighbors. This book says nothing about immigration, but a meritocratic approach presumably means restrictions based (only) on ability.
What about ethnostates? Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele recognize that they provide the best sense of community and offer a social fabric in which people are willing to be taxed to support fellow citizens. They even realize that they are the only way to maintain real, world-wide diversity. They list several objections — that separating out the less able races leaves them poor, that a homogenous society is less adaptable to changing conditions, that maintaining homogeneity requires social controls, and that ethno-states are more likely to make war on each other — none of which is very significant.
It is unfortunate for the less able races if separation leaves them less well off, but is it any less unfortunate for the more able races to be saddled with low-IQ, high crime populations to support? No race has a right to charity from another. Likewise, it would be hard to think of challenges the Japanese or the Icelanders are unable to face because of homogeneity. How would large numbers of Mexicans or Filipinos better prepare them for changing conditions? At the same time, homogeneous societies need fewer internal controls than diverse societies because the government need not police the inevitable inter-ethnic conflicts. The controls are at the border, and do not effect citizens. As for the likelihood of war, diversity within borders causes much more bloodshed than homogeneity. A UN study of the years 1989 to 1992 found 82 conflicts that resulted in 1,000 or more deaths. Of this number, no fewer than 79 involved ethnic or religious antagonists, and took place within the borders of single nations. Only three were cross-border conflicts.
Prof. Sarich and Mr. Miele are remarkable to have considered separation as an option at all, much less to have listed its advantages and disadvantages. Most commentators do not even consider it an option, or reject it out of hand. Of course, separation is not merely a logically possible reaction to the reality of race; it is the necessary reaction if whites are to survive as a distinct people with a culture of their own.
The race-is-a-myth argument is not only wrong but hugely damaging. It promotes the fantasy that no population should resist replacement by another, since it is really being replaced by itself. It suggests that miscegenation is a myth, so no one need be concerned about whom their children marry. In practical terms, these misconceptions hurt whites far more than anyone else. It is almost exclusively whites who are being replaced by aliens, and it is whites who are failing to reproduce themselves and whose numbers are most dangerously thinned by miscegenation. The most significant and insidious effect of the current foolishness about race is to encourage whites to resign themselves to dispossession and oblivion.
This book is a very important contribution to the study of race. It covers the science in accessible language, and presents unfashionable data without flinching. It is an invaluable resource for the defense of our race against ignorance and indifference.
|IN THE NEWS|
O Tempora, O Mores!
Out With the White Children
Last fall, for the first time, non-whites outnumbered whites in Florida’s public schools. Whites were just 49.75 percent of the state’s 2.6 million public school students, followed by blacks at 23.88 percent, Hispanics at 21.7 percent, and Asians at 2.04 percent. Students who say they are multiracial outnumbered Asians, at 2.34 percent. Florida is the seventh state to see its public school student body go majority non-white, after Hawaii (80 percent non-white), New Mexico (66 percent), California (65 percent), Texas (59 percent), Mississippi (53 percent), and Louisiana (51 percent). Public schools in the District of Columbia are 95 percent non-white. Hispanics, whose enrollment increased by more than 500,000 since 1977, are driving whites out; now one in six white students in Florida attends private school. [Letitia Stein, Minorities Reach Majority in State Schools, St. Petersburg Times, Feb. 27, 2004, p. 1A.]
Out With the White Men
When he ran for Brooklyn Borough President in 2002, Marty Markowitz promised that if he were elected, he would remove the portraits of “the old white guys” — like George Washington — that hung in the Brooklyn Borough Hall. “There’s not one picture of a person of color, not one kid, not one Latino in Borough Hall,” he said. Mr. Markowitz has kept his promise. Although he let Washington stay, he replaced every other portrait with works by contemporary black artists. “We are always celebrating the diversity of Brooklyn,” he explains.
One celebration of diversity is an unflattering image of the Pope, mocking him for his apology for the church’s role in the slave trade. Another, called “Sweet Thing,” features a voluptuous woman with “inviting hips [and] enticing thighs.” Danny Simmons, the black man in charge of the new paintings, says art like “Sweet Thing” “goes a long way toward making Borough Hall more inclusive.” [Gersh Kuntzman, Brooklyn Finally Shows Its True Colors in Borough Hall, New York Post, Feb. 12, 2004, p. 31.]
No Sauce for the Gander
In February, the College Republicans at Roger Williams College in Bristol, Rhode Island, caused a furor when their president, Jason Mattera, announced a $250 whites-only scholarship. Mr. Mattera, who is Puerto Rican, got a $5,000 scholarship from the Hispanic College Fund that gave him, he says, “an inherent advantage over my white peers.” He thinks scholarships should reward merit, not race, and offered the whites-only scholarship as a protest. The school administration denounced Mr. Mattera, as did state and national GOP leaders. [Jennifer Syles, Whites-Only Scholarship Generates Controversy, CNN, Feb. 20, 2004.]
There was, of course, no outrage when the Goizueta Foundation, (established by Robert Goizueta, the late former president of Coca-Cola) awarded a $500,000 grant to Reinhardt College, a small liberal-arts college in north Georgia, for Hispanics-only scholarships. [$500 Mil Dolares en Becas Para Latinos ($500,000 in Grants for Latinos), Atlanta Latino, Jan. 29 — Feb. 4, 2004, p. 12.]
Nashville, Tennessee, will soon get 400 Somali Bantu, its share of the 13,000 sponsored by the US Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). ORR and World Relief, an agency the feds hired to help settle the newcomers, held a conference in Nashville in January to teach people what to expect from primitives who have never seen electricity or indoor plumbing. ORR plans similar sessions in other US cities. [Anita Wadwhani, Conference to Guide Social Workers as Bantu Refugees Arrive in Midstate, The Tennessean (Nashville), Jan. 11, 2004.]
Nashville is already dealing with a wave of Hispanics, who are “socially isolated” because they are poor and can’t speak English. As usual, the local papers say this is the fault of native Nashvillians who must “learn about and appreciate the traditions of the foreign born.” They should also pay for a new bureaucracy to “pull together all the existing services for immigrants and then identify unmet needs.” [Making Nashville a More Diversity-Friendly City, City Paper (Nashville), Jan. 12, 2004, p. 3.]
Nashvillians are also supposed to learn Spanish. Ken Darby is personnel manager for Commercial Painting, which has a 20-percent Hispanic workforce. He offers English courses for the Mexicans, but also tried to get Americans to study Spanish. He ran into a barrier of healthy sentiment. “It didn’t seem to work,” says the poor, baffled Mr. Darby. “Americans have a more narrow-minded attitude of, ‘This is America and we speak English so they should speak English.’” [Jared Porter, ProLingua Works to Break Down Language Barriers on the Job, Green Hills News (Tennessee), Feb. 5, 2004, p. 22.]
Despite recent efforts to shake up its prime-time lineup, cable news channel MSNBC continues to lag well behind rivals CNN and Fox News. Needless to say, some people claim the problem is too many news shows with white hosts and white guests that ignore the nation’s 90 million non-whites. “A significant portion of the American population simply is not tuning in because there’s nothing of interest for them there,” says Sam Riddle, of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. Curtis Symonds, a black programming consultant, says programmers need “to take the blinders off and realize there’s a huge crossover in multicultural audiences.” [With New Chief on Board, MSNBC Needs an Identity, Reuters/Hollywood Reporter, Feb. 23, 2004.]
The cable network Showtime is working on a new reality program. In Make Me Cool, modeled on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, a gang of blacks will give a “desperately dweebie” white guy a “hipness makeover.” The joke version of the title among those developing the program is Black Eye for the White Guy. “There’s something in the culture right now that there are parts of black culture that everyone wants to aspire to,” says Showtime executive producer Jay Blumenfield. “We want to explore that. We want to face racial stereotypes head on and say, ‘What is this? Why is this?’” Explaining why the network had chosen whites, Mr. Blumenfield said, “The first people will be uncool, and the easiest way to express that is they’ll be white.” The program will not just change the way whites look; “this is about immersing them in a whole new culture.” [Phil Kloer, Black Eye for the White Guy? Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Feb. 20, 2004.]
City of Fools
In December 2003, federal immigration agents arrested a dozen or so illegal aliens in Portland, Maine. In January, at a meeting at Portland’s city hall, assistant US Attorney for Maine Halsey Frank had to justify the arrests to an angry crowd of immigrants, social activists, and politicians — including the mayor. The locals accused the feds of racial profiling because they caught some of the illegals outside social service agencies and other places that attract non-whites. Mr. Frank’s explanation that the federal government has an obligation to enforce immigration laws was poorly received.
“To us, this is clear violation of civil rights,” complained Winston McGill of the Portland NAACP. “We do feel this was based on color.” Ben Guiliani, president of El Centro Latino, denied the government had probable cause to question people and make arrests. “I can tell you the border patrol is not raiding Irish pubs in Boston,” he said. “Probable cause is what? Being brown?” Others said immigrants were afraid to leave their homes for fear of border patrol agents. The Rev. Mutima Peter of the International Christian Fellowship Church said the arrests were like the police-state brutality that led many immigrants to leave home in the first place. Mayor Nathan Smith said the city will continue to enforce a local ordinance that forbids city officials and police officers from questioning a person’s immigrant status. [Justin Ellis, City Reaches Out to Immigrants, Portland Press Herald, Jan. 7, 2004.]
The Institute of Medicine, a division of the National Academy of Sciences, says not enough non-whites are entering medicine. Only two percent of registered nurses, 3.4 percent of psychologists, and 3.5 percent of doctors are Hispanic, and only five percent of doctors and dentists are black. There are hardly any American Indian doctors, though nearly 20 percent of medical school graduates are Asian. The Institute of Medicine says medical schools should slant their admissions towards non-whites, and put more non-whites on admissions committees. They also want Congress to pay for “diversity” programs, and for state and local governments to reimburse tuition, and forgive student loans for non-white medical students. [Minorities Few in Health Fields, AP, Feb. 6, 2004.]
Suffer the Little Children
Congolese are superstitious. Fighters on all sides in the five-year-old civil war believe that eating their enemies gives them special powers. Now, fear of child witches is sweeping the country. Parents accuse children of witchcraft when crops fail, if they lose jobs, or anything else goes wrong. A child may also be accused of being a witch if he playfully speaks to an animal or a tree, or just has a nightmare. Medicine men make suspected witches vomit out the evil spirits by forcing them to swallow gasoline, bitter herbs, and even small fish. One family tried to purify an 11-year-old girl by pouring acid over her and trying to make her drink it. They thought she had bewitched her half brother and made him sick.
If the exorcism fails and the problem isn’t solved, families turn the children out. UNICEF says more than 40,000 children wander the streets of Kinshasa, and at least 60 percent of them are accused witches. Many fall in with street gangs that steal and scrounge for food. Girls as young as five work as prostitutes. Some of the older children are violent. Recently a gang of children ambushed and killed four policemen armed with automatic rifles. [C.J. Maloney, Suffer the Children, The Independent (Southern California), Feb. 19, 2004, p. 20. Sudarsan Raghavan, Congo Children Suffering Accusations of Witchcraft, Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 3, 2003.]
Border patrols in both the US and Canada have noticed an increase in human smuggling across the border, and are trying to stop it. On February 22, authorities nabbed 11 South Koreans who hoped to walk across the Alberta-Montana border. Six were women. Korean women are known to pay from $6,000 to $10,000 to smugglers, and often end up working as prostitutes to pay off the debt. Many Korean illegals enter from Canada because they can get there without a visa. Better enforcement along the Western border means smugglers have to look for less well-guarded crossings in the Canadian interior. [Linda Slobodian, Human Smuggling Ring Smashed at US-Alberta Border, Calgary Herald, Feb. 24, 2004.]
Ethnicity in Britain
When the British government conducted the national census in 2001, the English, Scots and Welsh could not indicate their “national” identities in the same way as Indians, Bangladeshis, Africans, and the Irish, and were identified only as “white.” The Office of National Statistics received much criticism for this; “There’s a growing interest in how people perceive themselves nationally” says a spokesman. Now, when Britons fill out government forms, surveys and job applications, they can describe themselves as “white English” or “Afro-Caribbean Scottish.”
Whites may find the new classifications a double-edged sword. They may promote national consciousness, but government race-minders will also use them to stamp out “racism” among whites. Employers in Britain must “promote racial equality,” so a Scottish company employing only Scots could be violating race relations laws. In 2002, rugby commentator Mark Souster, who is English, sued the BBC for discrimination after he was replaced as BBC Scotland rugby correspondent by a Scot. [John Elliot and David Robertson, English, Scots and Welsh are now Officially Ethnic, Sunday Times (London), Jan. 11, 2004, p. 7.]
English in Decline
According to British language expert David Graddol, English is unlikely to become the global language after all. He predicts a multilingual future, with English “first among equals” but no longer dominant. After Chinese, English is the second-most-spoken language, but he thinks Hindi-Urdu and Arabic will surpass it by 2050, as the percentage of native English speakers drops from its 1950 high of nine percent to five percent. As the prominence of English declines, he says, “Monolingual speakers of any variety of English — American or British — will experience increasing difficulty in employment and political life, and are likely to become bewildered by many aspects of society and culture around them.” Already 20 percent of people in the United States speak a language other than English at home. [English Language Unlikely to be Dominant, Expert Says, AP, Feb. 27, 2004.]
Faith in Britain
Although three fourths of Britain’s 60 million people claim to be Christian, only 916,000 attend weekly Church of England services. By contrast, 930,000 of 1.8 million British Muslims go to mosque at least once a week. This marks the first time Muslim attendance has outstripped Anglican. Muslim leaders say the numbers mean Muslims should now share some of the Church of England’s privileges as an established religion. These include tax breaks and the right of senior bishops to sit in Parliament. [Nicholas Hallen and Christopher Morgan, Muslim Piety Outstrips Anglican, Sunday Times (London), Jan. 25, 2004, p. 1.]
Islam already gets preferential treatment from British radio and television, according to Lord Dubs, the retiring head of Britain’s Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC). “In portraying Muslims,” he says, “they have held back, they have censored themselves, they are timid. I have seen them pour scorn on Christianity more than on other religions. Christianity is an easier and more acceptable target — followed, to a lesser extent, by Jews and Hindus.” Lord Dubs also says the BSC itself has been biased in favor of Muslims.
The Right Rev. Richard Holloway, also a BSC member, notes that someone once said “Jesus f****** Christ” on a program aired on Britain’s Channel 4. He says the program would not have been broadcast with a slur against the prophet Muhammed. “There is much more sensitivity to disturbing Islam,” he explains. “It is partly because the Muslim community does not have a tradition of humour about religion.” [Nicholas Hallen, TV Chiefs Favor Muslims, Says Watchdog, Sunday Times (London), Dec. 28, 2003.]
Sounds Good to Us
Vernon Robinson is a black man running for the Republican nomination in the 5th Congressional District of North Carolina. He is an Air Force Academy graduate, has an MBA, has been a business professor, and was elected twice to the Winston-Salem city council. According to his campaign literature:
“Mr. Robinson is pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-Ten Commandments. He’s led the fight against wasteful spending, racial quotas, and special rights for homosexuals. And he’s led the charge to create jobs by eliminating excessive taxation, regulation, litigation, and illegal immigration.”
Among his enemies are what he calls “the race hustling poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.” He boasts that the local paper calls him the “black Jesse Helms,” and indeed Sen. Helms has endorsed him, as have Rep. Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan. He sounds better than a lot of whites. [Campaign Flyer, Robinson for Congress.]
On any given morning, as many as 300 mostly Mexican and Guatemalan men line up along Center Street in Jupiter, Florida, waiting for someone to stop and offer them jobs. Most are illegals, who will work for $5 to $10 an hour. The men live in squalid apartments on the south side of Center Street, sometimes as many as 10 to a one-bedroom apartment. Whites live on the north side of Center Street in upscale houses, and many aren’t happy with their new neighbors.
“My kids don’t ride their bikes on Center Street anymore, and they don’t take the school bus,” says Sherrie Stevenson. “There are so many of those men, and it’s dark when the bus comes in the morning. It’s too scary.”
According to Jupiter police, the men are often guilty of minor nuisance crimes. “The main problems,” says Officer Freddy Almodovar, “are that the day laborers block the sidewalks, leave trash around, sometimes they catcall girls.” Because they live in small apartments, they produce a lot of trash, make noise, and urinate in public “because somebody else is in the bathroom.” He admits this is unpleasant for nearby homeowners, but adds, “some of those same people with the nice houses come here to get guys to cut their lawns. You can’t have it both ways.”
Assistant town manager Andy Lucasik says Jupiter needs a lot of low-wage labor, but has almost no low-income housing. “We have a large number of gated communities that have a great need for landscaping. We have golf courses and construction projects,” he explains. “They all use workers like those who live in those apartment complexes.” The city is thinking about an ordinance to limit the number of people who may live in an apartment, but fears this could force the men out on the street. As for loitering, the city may build a “labor bazaar” on city property where men could look for work.
The laborers say that would be fine with them, but they worry about the proposed housing ordinance. “They haven’t come to check our apartments, but some people are saying we might get deported,” says Jose, 48, an illegal from Guatemala. “I’ll tell you this, the people around here need us. If they hire an American to do these jobs it will cost them $200 per day, and we’ll do it for $80 or even $60.” [John Lantigua, Suburbanites, Day Laborers at Odds in Jupiter, Palm Beach Post, Feb. 16, 2004, p. 1A.]
Google’s Double Standard
On Dec. 29, AR started a “sponsored links” ad campaign to promote AR when people did Google searches on terms like “race and IQ,” “race and intelligence,” “black crime,” etc. The results of a search on these expressions would include a small ad for the American Renaissance conference, with a link to our site. The campaign was useful: in three weeks, our ad came up 35,142 times, and 192 people clicked on it and came to our site. We paid five cents for every click.
On Jan. 21, Google stopped our campaign, saying our website contained “language that advocates against an individual, group, or organization.” Google also told us it did not allow anyone to buy “sponsored links” for the terms “race and IQ,” “innate race differences,” “anti-white,” “racialism,” and others, also on the grounds that this language advocated against an individual, group, or organization. They let our ads run for three weeks only because they hadn’t gotten around to looking at them.
I asked Google to explain its decision, pointing out that many websites that advocate against an individual, group, or organization buy sponsored links. Conservative websites that advocate against liberals and liberal websites that advocate against conservatives buy sponsored links. Besides, I noted, Google searches on “American Renaissance” and “Jared Taylor” bring up an ad for a book called Homeland: Into a World of Hate. Clearly, this ad was advocacy against Jared Taylor and AR readers.
Google replied with a cheery “Hello Ian,” explaining that “it has been determined by the AdWords editorial staff that the American Renaissance website contains content that portrays images of particular groups of individuals, some of which are negative.” “As a business,” my correspondent continued, “Google must make decisions about where we draw the line in regards to the advertising we accept, both from a legal and company values perspective.” He assured me that “Google believes strongly in freedom of speech.” Furthermore, only our ads were affected: normal search results for “American Renaissance” were not filtered. Google promised to review the ad for Homeland, but it is still running.
What Google said about the normal search results was not entirely true. There is no filtering in the American version of Google. However, AR is one of many websites the French and German versions of Google will not list. Google is not to blame for these exclusions: Under the “anti-racism” laws of both these countries, it could be illegal for Google to list our site.
|LETTERS FROM READERS|
Sir — I refer to conditions in post-colonial Africa as described in the review of Paul Theroux’s Dark Star Safari: Overland from Cairo to Cape Town (Dec. 2003). Unfortunately, parts of Australia seem to be going the same way.
Roughly 50 percent of Australia’s Northern Territory, an area roughly the size of Texas, has been handed over to the 50,000 Aborigines who live there. This should have put them on easy street but many, if not most, are going backwards. What had been hard-working cattle stations are now often devoid of stock. The people are poor, and unemployment rates of 90 percent are not uncommon. Literacy levels are well behind the rest of the country, and crime rates are climbing.
During the 1990s, the homicide rate in the Territory went over 16 per 100,000 people. For a short time this was sharply reduced because of mandatory sentencing legislation under which anyone convicted three times automatically went to prison, regardless of the seriousness of the crime. Virtually all those incarcerated under this policy were Aborigines, so there were the usual complaints about racism. The government took a lot of criticism about this, and things came to a head when an Aboriginal imprisoned under the policy committed suicide.
There was a change in government and the legislation was repealed. Within two years the homicide rate in the Territory more than tripled. At the same time, the homicide rate for Australian girls under 10 years of age rose by 110 percent — a sickening example of how “anti-racist” measures backfire.
R. Hughes, Strathfield, NSW, Australia
Sir — I was surprised your articles on competitive altruism (Oct. and Nov. 2003) did not cite the potlatch feasts celebrated by the Indians of northwestern coastal America. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a potlach feast as “a ceremonial feast . . . at the end of which the host gives valuable material goods to the guests who belong to other kin groups . . . to show he can afford to do so.” The US government finally stepped in because the over-competitive potlach Indians were “giving” themselves into penury.
Kenneth Schmidt, Muskegon, Mich.
Sir — Your sexism is outrageous! How dare you claim careers are “unnecessary” for educated, smart white women (“Fruits of an Unfettered Mind,” previous issue). Furthermore, no one should have children he doesn’t want. Anyone who has to be pressured or encouraged to be a parent will not be a good one. We don’t owe society children. And lastly, men are just as responsible for child rearing and housekeeping as women. I don’t buy your nonsense that women are inherently better at child rearing — that’s just an excuse to hold them back. If they are, why do so many women turn to Benjamin Spock and John Rosemond for help?
Anonymous, Atlanta, Ga.
Sir — While living in Mexico City from 1994 to early 1997, I was sometimes taken for a native speaker of Spanish. I learned it living in Madrid. I traveled all over the country, and met people from the bottom to the top of Mexican society.
I would like to see all illegal aliens deported and our borders closed by whatever means necessary. Mexico, however, is a special case. It is unstable, and if it did not have the escape valve of emigration to and remittances from the US, it would explode into chaos and anarchy from which we could not insulate ourselves — something far worse than the problems we have now. Unfortunately, we are stuck with Mexico.
A strongly-regulated guest worker program, just for Mexicans, coupled with deportation of all other illegals and strict border controls is the only combination that will work.
Thomas Oleson, Gig Harbor, Wash.
Sir — I greatly enjoyed last month’s article about Hispanic family values. The only criticism I have is that the writer should have made it clear which Hispanics he was writing about from a racial point of view. Some Hispanics are, of course, white.
Some of the problems Hispanics have are clearly rooted in biology. High rates of alcoholism are found among those groups that are essentially Native American. Some non-European groups are unable to metabolize alcohol as Europeans do, and alcohol is essentially a poison to them. Spaniards and Argentines, on the other hand, do not suffer from particularly high rates of alcoholism.
Frank Pucillo, Davie, Fla.