|American Renaissance magazine|
|Vol. 22, No. 4||April 2011|
The Colonization of Europe
How Europe could become Eurabia.
I would like to start with the words of the leader of a Belgian Muslim organization with the straightforward name of Sharia4Belgium. On June 15, 2010, Abu Imran said: “We won’t rest until Europe has become an Islamic state. And then we will march on towards the White House and the Vatican. We will carry out the promise of our dear Prophet. In a peaceful way, but we will continue until the Lord grants us victory.”
As far back as 1974, Algerian President Houari Boumedienne told the General Assembly of the United Nations: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
Boumedienne’s prediction is becoming true. Through family reunification, migration for marriage, and asylum, each year about two million non-Europeans receive residence permits from the European Union.
And just as immigration and high birth rates are dramatically increasing the number of non-European immigrants, white Europe is on the verge of extinction. With the exception of Albania, which consists mainly of Muslims, not a single European country has a birth rate high enough to maintain its population. The number of native Europeans could fall to half in less than 50 years.
This means the ethnic composition of Europe is dramatically changing. One out of seven of Germany’s 82 million inhabitants is of foreign descent. For France, the figure is 16 per cent. In the United Kingdom, one out of nine people was born abroad. In the Netherlands, one out of five people is of foreign origin. In Belgium, immigrants account for one sixth of the population. An astonishing 70 percent of the people of Brussels, the capital of Europe, are immigrants (including other Europeans), and that percentage will rise to 85 per cent by 2020. In my own city of Antwerp, 40 percent of the population is foreign, and that figure is likely to be 55 percent in 2020.
It is estimated that five million Turks live in Europe, mostly in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Austria. Some five million North Africans live in Europe, primarily in France, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Sweden. About five million black Africans are in Europe, mostly in France and Britain. The number of Asians in Europe runs to about four million, with one million Pakistanis in Britain alone. Europe also counts about 2.2 million South Americans, mainly in Spain, Portugal, and Italy.
The Western World is being invaded — not by armed men, but by millions of penniless immigrants. The result is rising crime rates, overburdened social services, unemployment, school failure, immigrant riots, a white exodus from areas dominated by immigrants, and the arrival of such barbaric practices as forced marriages, honor killings, ritual slaughter of animals, and female genital mutilation.
As the native European population shrinks, there is still an enormous population growth in Third-World countries. Sixty years ago, there were three times as many Europeans as black Africans; now black Africans outnumber Europeans. By 2030, there will be almost twice as many black Africans as Europeans. At current growth rates, the population of black Africa will reach one billion by 2017 and 1.3 billion by 2030. If Europe does not stand up to the immigration invasion and enforce a strict immigration policy, its population threatens to be overrun by a tsunami of indigent Third-World immigrants.
Another threat Europe faces is the possible admission of Turkey to the European Union. In 1987, Turkey applied for membership. At first, Greece vetoed admission, but withdrew its veto in 1999, and since that time, Turkey has officially been a candidate member state. In 2005, the EU began negotiating with Turkey for possible admission.
In 2010, there were 501 million people living in the 27 member states of the EU. The accession of a non-European Muslim country with almost 80 million inhabitants would be pure madness. For hundreds of years, Europe had to protect its eastern borders against Turkish imperialism. It was not until the 19th century that southern Europe was finally almost freed from Turkish invaders. If Turkey were to gain EU membership, Europe’s gates would be opened to its ancient hereditary enemy.
If Turkey joins the EU, it will mean not only millions more immigrants. It will mean a powerful Islamic country can influence European policy. It is important to note that since 2003, Turkey has been governed by Islamic fundamentalists. Turkey’s prime-minister Tayyip Erdogan showed his true colors in 1997 — before he entered the government — when he said, “Mosques are our barracks, domes our helmets, minarets our bayonets, believers our soldiers.” He has also said, “Democracy is like a train, we shall get out when we arrive at the station we want.”
It would be unacceptable for European elites to decide on the accession of Turkey without consulting the European people. Therefore, a coalition of patriotic parties — the Vlaams Belang in Belgium, the Austrian Freedom Party, the Lega Nord in Italy, the Danish Peoples Party, and the Swedish Democrats — announced in October 2010 that they would organize a popular initiative, as stipulated by the Lisbon Treaty, to put this matter before the European people. We intend to organize a referendum in the entire EU on the accession of Turkey.
In the 1980s and ’90s, we were pleased to witness the fall of communism. After the Soviet Union collapsed and its terrible crimes were revealed, communism lost its credibility. The New Left then used the immigration problem to dress communism up as something new. Communists transformed themselves into anti-racists, and the struggle for multiculturalism and against racism replaced the communist class struggle and the proletarian revolution. Immigrants and other so-called minority groups now play the role of the working-class proletariat. “Discrimination” rather than oppression of the workers has become the Left’s great demon. Minorities and immigrants must be emancipated, raised up, and trained in multiculturalist thinking.
Ultimately, the objectives of communism and multiculturalism are the same. Both strive for the equality of cultures and people, and want to create a new type of man, who is no longer determined by his cultural environment, but formed according to multicultural principles.
In recent years, the working class has changed sides politically. Many ordinary Europeans who might have supported the Left during the heyday of communism, have rejected the new multicultural goals. The “progressive” parties, however, have embraced the immigrants.
The Left cultivates a number of guilt complexes in order to weaken European resolve. It trumpets racism, anti-Semitism, slavery, colonialism, and xenophobia as Europe’s original sins. Because of this allegedly shameful record, the European people no longer have a right to their own identity, culture, and traditions. In the Leftist world view, European nation states are harmful anachronisms that are responsible for anything that goes wrong in this world.
The multicultural ideology has become a kind of new religion, with the equality of cultures as its central dogma. The cure for the European disease is obvious: Open the gates of Europe to pauperized masses from Third-World countries. Immigration will cure the sins of colonization. Europe must be reprogrammed according to multicultural prescriptions, “institutional racism” must be eliminated, and the entire population reeducated.
Islamization fits in perfectly with this program. Millions of Muslims and their families move to Europe while multiculturalism requires that Islam, under the guise of freedom of religion, be placed on equal terms with European religions.
As I noted above, Muslim leaders have stated their goals clearly. In the summer of 2010, on the second anniversary of the Libyan-Italian friendship treaty, the Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi gave a speech in Italy, in which he expressed his wish that “Islam would become the religion of the whole of Europe.” He added that “Islam is the last religion and if we should have faith, we should believe in Mohammed.”
In 2006, Mr. Gadhafi told the Al Jazeera network: “We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe — without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”
In his speech, Mr. Gadhafi was simply reiterating what Islam has always stood for: world domination and the creation of a world-wide Islamic political order. Muslims believe that Islam is the definitive revelation to mankind and that it is every Muslim’s duty to help conquer and subjugate the world, because the earth belongs to Allah. For 1,400 years, this has been the final goal of Islam’s war of conquest, its universal jihad.
And Islam is, indeed, taking over Europe. It is the fastest growing religion on our continent. In the 1960s there were only one to two million Muslims in Western Europe; now there are more than 20 million. Mosques and Koranic schools shoot up like mushrooms. Islamic customs and symbols — from ritual slaughter to headscarves to Islamic holidays — are authorized, made official, and treated as equal to our own traditions. Neighborhoods and districts turn into Islamic ghettos where there is no sign of integration, let alone assimilation. This Islamization is a new form of colonization that is changing Europe into Eurabia.
Europe’s hereditary enemy
Islam is Europe’s hereditary enemy. It is a religion of conquest that twice invaded our lands. The first invasion took place in the seventh century, when Spain, Portugal and even the south of France were conquered by Islam. Only in 732 at Poitiers did Charles Martel halt the rise of Islam. It took another 800 years to drive Islam out of southern Europe. The reconquista was finally achieved in 1492, when the last Islamic troops fled from Granada across the Mediterranean. Even the Crusades can be thought of as defensive wars to prevent a new Islamic invasion.
In the 14th century, the Ottoman Turks again took up the westward march into Europe. That invasion was not stopped until 300 years later in 1683 at the gates of Vienna. Today, we are under attack again, and the third Islamic invasion is taking place as we speak.
This third invasion is not actual warfare. Of course, there is a terrorist threat, but the real battle is demographic. Muslims are “peacefully” overrunning Europe. Through mass immigration, conversion, propaganda, family reunification, and high birth rates Islam is marching on.
Unlike the shrinking native European population, the world Muslim population is expected to increase — by 35 percent in the next 20 years, rising from 1.6 billion to 2.2 billion by 2030. I noted earlier that Western Europe counts more than 20 million Muslims, including illegal immigrants. If we add Russia and Eastern Europe there are officially more than 50 million Muslims in the whole of Europe. According to projections, that number could grow to 73 million by 2030.
Islam is like a typical predator: It attacks only the weak, and Europe is weak. Our continent has lost its identity, its confidence, its culture, and is becoming an economic giant with feet of clay. Thanks to the transformation of communism into anti-racism and multiculturalism, Europe is afraid to defend the norms and values of its own civilization. Just as AIDS weakens the physical resistance of human beings, multiculturalism weakens the identity and demographic resistance of a people and a civilization. Islam takes advantage of this weakness. It is like a cuckoo that lays its egg in the warm European nest. We, Europeans, are unsuspectingly hatching this cuckoo egg and will eventually be cast out!
The cult of multiculturalism has blinded Europe to the threat of Muslim fundamentalism. Since the 1980s, extremist groups have infiltrated Europe but governments and security services have done nothing. Europe thus allowed an Islamic fifth column to take root in European soil. Extremist organizations not only plan terrorist attacks on European soil, they also spread fundamentalist ideas among the growing Muslim communities in Europe. It is hardly surprising that not just the bombings in Madrid and London but the September 11 attacks on New York were planned by Muslims living in Europe.
Most Muslim extremists, of course, do not commit terrorist attacks. Their jihad is infiltration, agitation, conversion, intimidating dissenters, inciting Muslims who live in the West, and undermining Western civilization. In Islamic circles, terrorism is simply a matter of tactics, not one of principle.
Meanwhile, the Muslim enclaves in European cities are getting bigger and bigger, and the authorities can hardly maintain control over them. Fundamentalist Muslims use these ghettos as bridgeheads for conquering the entire society. Fundamentalists control the Muslim community and replace democratic rule and European norms with sharia, the system of Islamic law. In the suburbs of Paris, where young Muslims often riot, there are more than 700 official no-go zones in which the French authorities have almost completely lost control. It is from these centers that Islam spreads its tentacles.
Winston Churchill once said: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” The European establishment has tried to buy social peace by making one concession after another to Islam. This strategy is suicidal. We give the impression that we are weak, which only strengthens Islam in its belief that victory is at hand.
Europe must make a choice: submit to invasion and Islamization, or resist and force Islam back. Unfortunately, the supporters of multiculturalism are still in control of the social debate in Europe. Although the grip of the multiculturalists is weakening, they still control European politics and media, and have even managed to muzzle free speech with so-called “hate speech” laws.
Europe needs to resurrect its fighting spirit. A European Renaissance is possible only if we tear off the multicultural straitjacket, renounce cultural nihilism, resume our identity and cultural uniqueness, and dare to proclaim the superiority of our own civilization.
In order to save their continent, Europeans must first regain control over their borders and stop the immigration invasion. Immigration policy must serve our social and cultural needs, not those of foreign invaders.
Europe must also confront Islam. It is no use to declare a “war on terror” and at the same time ignore the political-religious reasons for the violence. We must dismantle the structures of Islam in Europe and force Islam back. Muslims must embrace Europe and integrate, or return to their countries of origin.
We should not be defeatist. All across Europe there are political parties that understand what is at stake. The parties I mentioned earlier — my own Vlaams Belang, along with the Danish People’s Party, the Freedom Party of Austria, the Swedish Democrats, the Northern League, as well as others — are fully aware of the failures of multiculturalism and recognize the demographic threat. With enough effort and commitment, Europe will remain European.
Filip Dewinter is a senator in the Flemish parliament and a leader of the Vlaams Belang. This article is adapted from his talk at the 2011 American Renaissance conference.
Desperate Shortage of Dishwashers!
Scamming the system to keep wages down.
In his matter-of-fact way, Pat Buchanan recently asked, “Why are we importing a million-plus workers a year when 17 million Americans can’t find work? Whose country is this? . . . Charity begins at home.” Our rulers continue to bring in hundreds of thousands of workers every year legally, even as unemployment hovers near double digits. There has been much ado about job outsourcing, but little attention paid to the malign effects of government-sanctioned insourcing.
In particular, little is said about the H-2B guestworker program, the cousin of the better-known H-1B program, which gets media attention because its beneficiaries compete with American college graduates for high-tech jobs. Because the H-2B program brings in unskilled foreigners who work in hotels, restaurants, landscaping, etc., it receives little notice, but it is just as fraught with fraud as its better publicized counterpart.
A January 2010 report by the Center for Immigration Studies’ David Seminara detailed the corruption in the H-2B program, as well as its impact on the wages and jobs of Americans. Mr. Seminara wrote that in the past five years the program has filled more than half a million jobs with foreigners rather than Americans or immigrants who were already here. Astonishingly, these unskilled laborers have the more or less automatic right to bring spouses and children to America on what are called H-4 visas. The children can’t be turned away from school, and any born here become “anchor babies” who, after they turn 21, can give their parents US citizenship via family unification.
H-2B visas are an outgrowth of the H-2 temporary visa program established in the 1960s. H-2 visas were for unskilled workers in all fields. The H-2 program was revamped as part of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which notoriously provided amnesty for illegal immigrants. IRCA reauthorized the H-2 program but divided its visas into H-2A temporary agricultural visas and H-2B temporary nonagricultural visas.
In 2008 and 2009, about 60,000 H-2A agricultural visas were issued each year. If there really is a category of unskilled labor for which there is a shortage, it is presumably farm workers — but even here the arguments are weak. There is considerable doubt about whether Americans really do refuse to do stoop work at prevailing wages, but even if farm wages had to be doubled to attract Americans you would hardly notice the difference at the checkout counter. Harvesting typically accounts for only about 10 percent of the supermarket price of produce, so pickers could double their wages and an apple that costs $1.00 would increase in price by only 10 cents. It is true that harvests are seasonal: It takes more hands to pick strawberries than to plant or tend them, so growers need a lot of help when crops ripen. Again, better wages almost always relieve labor shortages, but perhaps there is an argument for strictly seasonal foreign farm workers. It is much harder to argue that we need foreign non-farm workers such as dishwashers or chambermaids, but big business wants them — and Congress provides them.
Before the 1986 act, there was no punishment for employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants, so it was much easier just to hire illegals and skip the bureaucratic bother of the existing H-2 program. However, the amnesty provision of the act left businesses worried that their formerly docile workers would become more demanding, and the possibility of employer sanctions for hiring illegals made the old practice risky. This suddenly increased the importance of the H-2A and H-2B programs.
According to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website, the H-2B program allows businesses “to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary nonagricultural jobs.” A business that wants H-2B guestworkers must first establish that its labor need is “a one-time occurrence, a seasonal need, a peak-load need, or an intermittent need.” It must also demonstrate “that there are not sufficient US workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available to do the temporary work.” Finally, a prospective employer must show that H-2B guestworkers will not lower the wages or worsen the working conditions of US workers employed in similar jobs. None of these requirements is fully enforced.
A prospective employer has to get a Temporary Labor Certification from the Department of Labor, which verifies that the above requirements are met. The employer then files a Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker with USCIS on behalf of a prospective worker. The prospective worker, in turn, applies for the H-2B visa at a US embassy or consulate abroad. Usually, the employer goes through a recruiter who has contacts overseas.
If the H-2B visa is granted, the guestworker is typically allowed into the country for the designated temporary period, which is generally one year or less, though the visa may be extended in one-year increments up to a maximum of three years (what kind of “one-time,” “seasonal” or “intermittent” work goes on for three years?). After the visa expires, the worker must leave the United States for a period that ranges from 45 to 90 days, depending on the length of the initial stay. He can then return on another H-2B visa.
How common are overstays? Unfortunately, according to Mr. Seminara, “we have no way of quantifying how significant the H-2B overstay problem is because the DHS [Department of Homeland Security] still has no reliable entry/exit tracking system. Anecdotal evidence, however, indicates that the H-2B overstay problem is significant . . .”
Even if we do not know how long H-2B workers stay, we know where they come from. Each year the DHS publishes a list of countries whose citizens are eligible. The 2010 list was a grab bag of 39 countries that included Ethiopia and South Africa (the only black African countries), Israel, Holland, Turkey, Romania, and Australia.
The country that got the most H-2B visas was Mexico, because travel costs are low. For fiscal 2008, 70,812 Mexicans got new visas, and 4,126 got “returning” visas, meaning that they had already been here before on H-2B visas, went home, and got new ones. The next largest sources are Jamaica, with 8,454 new and 311 returning, and the Philippines with 3,684 new and none returning, for a 2008 grand total of 94,304. Officially, Congress has capped H-2B visas at 66,000 per year. However, guestworkers who extend their visas (which means they have not even gone back to their own country and are therefore not “returning”) do not count against the cap, which is why laborers from Mexico alone exceeded the 66,000 cap.
In 2005, President George W. Bush signed the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act (SOSSBA) that allowed for yet more visas by exempting returning H-2B guestworkers from counting toward the 66,000 limit. This meant that once you got an H-2B visa, you could keep “returning” year after year, and you would not be counted against the cap. As a result, more than 120,000 returning workers got special “H-2R” visas from 2005 to 2007, over and above the already exceeded fig-leaf cap of 66,000. Much to the chagrin of business interests, however, SOSSBA was allowed to expire in September 2007. Some observers think Nancy Pelosi and the Hispanic Caucus sacrificed SOSSBA in the hope of “comprehensive immigration reform,” which they have yet to get.
Between new, renewing, and returning H-2B guestworkers, numbers have gone from a modest 15,706 in 1997 to a high of 129,547 in 2007. H-2B continues to be popular, and many businesses are lobbying for the renewal of SOSSBA.
Needless to say, the process of “proving” that there are not enough Americans to do the work is easy to scam. According to Department of Labor regulations, would-be H-2B employers must run two help-wanted ads in the highest circulation local newspaper, and “prepare a recruitment report summarizing the results of the effort.” They have to list the name, address, and phone number of every American worker (citizen or otherwise) who applied for the job, and list “the lawful job-related reasons for not hiring each U.S. worker.”
The trouble is, the employer is not running ads because he wants US workers, but because he wants to prove there aren’t any US workers. By the time a business has paid a lawyer or consultant to navigate the program’s bureaucratic maze, it is determined to hire foreigners.
According to Mr. Seminara’s report, employers go to great lengths to discourage Americans from replying to H-2B compliance ads. He says ads may contain “needlessly long job descriptions that make the jobs sound as unappealing as possible,” and says they typically “require respondents to travel to a state workforce agency to ‘register there for a referral’ rather than go directly to an employer.” Nor do they usually list websites where potential applicants could find out more about the job.
Mr. Seminara asked the recruitment advertising director of a major northeast newspaper whether H-2B employers even want replies to the ads. “They don’t want a response at all,” he said, “and many of them are quite blunt about telling us that.” The director added that “we run their ad in the paper and then it goes on our website for free, but there is no requirement for them to advertise on the Internet, so they ask us to take it off our site.”
Why do employers want foreign workers in the first place? Mr. Seminara found that for the unskilled jobs that are filled with H-2B guestworkers, employers prefer Mexicans over Americans “because they perceive them as more highly motivated, less likely to make demands for raises, take sick days, or ask for improvements in working conditions.” Many of the Americans who would take these jobs are black, and Mr. Seminara writes that racial stereotypes help explain why employers would rather hire Mexicans. He cites Vanderbilt law professor Carol Swain, who says that “African American workers can be perceived as too demanding, [and] employers like the idea of being able to import more docile workers, and some black leaders have expressed a reluctance to criticize another [allegedly] downtrodden group.”
There are other reasons to prefer foreigners. The legal status of a H-2B worker is completely dependent on his employer. If a worker fails to show up or gets fired for any reason, he can lose his visa. He is tied to one employer, and cannot just go out and look for another job. He knows he is lucky to have work at all, and that there is nothing for him back in Mexico or Jamaica. This makes guestworkers very diligent, undemanding employees. It is no wonder businesses want them, and that there is corner-cutting to get them. What are the safeguards against fraud? As David Seminara writes in his report, “[N]either DHS nor the DOL [Department of Labor] has any budget earmarked to combat abuse of the H-2B program.”
The Government Accounting Office, however, recently conducted a fraud investigation in which its employees phoned up H-2B labor recruiters and pretended to be looking for foreign workers. In a September 2010 report, the GAO noted that although many of the recruiters did not encourage the callers to violate H-2B regulations, one Texas recruiter “suggested that we discourage American workers from accepting our landscaping job openings by having applicants run around the shop carrying a 50-pound bag to determine [whether] they were fit for the work. The recruiter also suggested conducting interviews before 7 a.m. and requiring drug testing prior to the interview as a means to ‘weed out’ qualified American applicants. In addition, the recruiter suggested that our current American landscape workers be fired ‘for cause’ or induced to quit months before filing a petition for H-2B workers to avoid arousing suspicion by Labor.”
Clearly, businesses can easily come up with phony “proof” that there aren’t enough Americans for the jobs, and the unemployment rates in the fields most occupied by H-2B guestworkers suggest their proofs are mostly rubbish. The Economic Policy Institute found that in 2006 and 2007, the jobless rates in the seven areas — food preparation, lodging, construction, motor freight, packing and materials handling, extraction occupations, and grounds maintenance — that account for over 60 percent of H-2B employment averaged 7.4 percent, compared to national rates of 4.4 and 4.6 percent. We can only assume that the differential is even greater, now that the national unemployment rate is nearly 10 percent.
Today, it is hard to believe businesses can’t find workers when more than 17 million Americans are looking for jobs. It is more likely that, like everyone else, employers are feeling the pinch and want to cut costs. The H-2B program’s purpose, however, is not to help struggling businesses in tough times, but to provide foreign relief when there is a genuine labor shortage. Even that goal is largely bogus because the market is very good at correcting shortages. Businesses increase wages and workers respond. Resorting to foreign labor only distorts the market and depresses wages. In fact, Mr. Seminara tracked the wages of common H-2B occupations such as housekeeping, dishwashing, and hotel desk clerking from 2003 to 2008, and found that the median hourly wage failed to keep pace with inflation, much less rise in response to any alleged “shortage.”
There is further damage to the economy because the vast majority of H-2B foreigners take jobs here for the sole purpose of sending money home. Their wages go straight back to Mexico or the Philippines, rather than support local businesses or go towards the down payment on a house in America.
Businesses don’t care; they continue to push for foreign labor. During fiscal 2008 and 2009, as the recession was throwing millions out of work, employers applied for more than 500,000 H-2B guestworkers, and the US Chamber of Commerce listed “expanding temporary immigration programs, such as the H-2B visa program” as one of its “Policy Priorities for 2010.”
If there is one thing Republican politicians are good at, it is pandering to business. Combined with Democrats’ indiscriminate passion for immigration and diversity, this is a sure-fire formula for dispossessing American workers. The answer to Mr. Buchanan’s question of why we do not take care of our own jobless is simple: It’s business as usual.
Mr. Wolff is a recent college graduate who tries to make a living pushing the Beltway intelligentsia in the direction of common sense.
The Galton Report
The third demographic transition.
Last month’s report summarized the work of Oxford University demographer David Coleman on estimates of the future increase in the numbers of non-Europeans in Britain. He has forecast that they will become a majority of the population about the year 2066, and an increasingly larger majority in the later decades of the 21st century. Hence, he concludes, for Britain “the future is brown.”
Professor Coleman has also estimated the future increase in the numbers of non-Europeans in six European countries: Germany, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Like Britain, they have experienced large-scale non-European immigration in the post-war decades. This has taken place partly as a result of signing the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees, which committed these countries to accept asylum seekers. In addition, some countries, notably Germany, encouraged non-European immigrants to help rebuild their economies, and others, notably France and the Netherlands, welcomed immigrants from their former colonies just as the British did. These non-Europeans consist principally of Turks in Germany, North Africans and sub-Saharan Africans in France, and North Africans and Middle Easterners in Austria, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.
The governments of these countries did not foresee the huge numbers of non-European asylum seekers who would flood into their countries, the low fertility of their own populations which fell to below replacement beginning in the 1980s, or the high fertility of the immigrants. Professor Coleman gives the following fertility rates for European and non-European women for the year 2000. France: Europeans, 1.9; Non-Europeans, 2.8. Netherlands: Europeans, 1.7; Non-Europeans, 2.5. Sweden: Europeans, 1.5; Non-Europeans, 2.3. These fertility differences and continuing immigration will inevitably lead to ever-increasing numbers of non-Europeans.
Professor Coleman’s estimates of the percentages of non-Europeans in six Western European countries in 2000 and projections of their percentages into 2050 are shown in the table below. In the group as a whole the percentage of non-Europeans approximately doubles over the half century, and this is typical of the rest of Western Europe.
However, the figures for the percentages of non-Europeans in 2000 are underestimates because they are taken from census figures that do not include third-generation immigrants, who are counted as indigenous. Also, a number of immigrants do not fill in census forms — especially illegals, for obvious reasons. The projected figures for the year 2050 are also probably underestimates because they assume that the fertility of immigrants will soon fall to that of Europeans, which it may well not.
The projected increase in the numbers of non-Europeans in these countries is not as great as in the United States or in Britain. Nevertheless, it is evident that if current trends continue, non-Europeans will eventually become majorities.
Professor Coleman has called these momentous changes in European populations “the third demographic transition.” The first transition was the decline in mortality and fertility that took place in the 19th century. He calls the second transition “shacking up and breaking up,” that is to say, “the radical changes in living arrangements, sexual habits, and marriage, which have bequeathed to this century a diversity of household and living arrangements hitherto unknown.” He points out that these changes have:
upset the centuries-old pattern in much of Western Europe since the 1960s and since the 1980s, [and] have spread to some Eastern European countries as well. Divorce and abortion are nearly universally legalized and in most cases made readily accessible. Welfare arrangements and law have abolished the former distinction between legitimate and illegitimate births. Sexual activity begins at younger ages and is nearly universal before marriage. Cohabitation before marriage is regarded as normal in many countries, with the popularity of marriage falling as its mean age rises to levels not seen since the 1930s.
Professor Coleman’s third demographic transition is the replacement of indigenous Europeans by non-Europeans. He writes:
International migration may bring, in the long run, the most dramatic changes of all in the social, cultural, political, and racial characteristics of European and other developed countries. If immigration persists at current levels it will transform Europe’s ethnic and racial composition. The foreign population in the European Union is now about 24 million, of whom about 14 million are from non-European countries. That total, based on citizenship, considerably understates — perhaps by up to one-quarter — the number of foreign immigrants, because of the rapid pace of naturalization. In France over the last 20 years, naturalization has turned foreigners into citizens faster than they arrive by immigration.
Professor Coleman concludes that “the growth of populations of foreign origin … [will] render the populations of 2100 unrecognizably different from those of 2000.”
The complacency of the European citizens in the United States and Western Europe about the mass immigration of alien peoples, and the future prospect of becoming minorities in their own countries is unique in human history. How this mindset has come about is difficult to understand. It is contrary to what Robert Ardrey described in his book, The Territorial Imperative, as the human instinct to defend national territory against invaders, yet somehow during the last half century the European peoples have lost this instinct.
Coleman, D. Immigration and ethnic change in low-fertility countries: a third demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 2006, 32, 401–446.
Coleman, D. Europe’s demographic future: Determinants, dimensions, and challenges. Population and Development Review, 2006, 32, 52-95
How Far Will They Go?
The limits of conservative commentary.
CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) was buzzing with activity at its 2011 meeting, which it held in Washington, DC, from February 10 through 12. CPAC has become the largest mainstream conservative gathering in the country, and attracted an estimated 11,000 people, including many of the stars of what passes for American conservatism: Ron and Rand Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, John Bolton, Michelle Bachman, Ann Coulter, and others.
There were more than 170 speakers and panels, and much celebration of Ronald Reagan. There were talks on traditional marriage, new media activism, pop culture, rediscovering God, defense spending, grass roots activism, money raising, conservative women, careers in journalism, the Patriot Act, and Obamacare. There was even a panel called “Winning with Minorities, Women, and Independents,” chaired by an El Diario columnist and frequent Telemundo guest, Al Cardenas.
There were only four presentations specifically about immigration. The first was called “Policy Recommendations for Real Immigration Reform,” with Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, and Kris Kobach, the newly-elected Secretary of State of Kansas. The group Citizens United showed its feature-length movie, Border War: The Battle Over Illegal Immigration, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali who wrote Infidel and former CIA director Jim Woolsey spoke on “The Sharia Challenge in the West.”
The most pointed discussion of immigration, however, was sponsored by a campus group, Youth for Western Civilization, and was called “Will Immigration Kill the GOP?” Panelists were Bay Buchanan (sister of Patrick and head of Team America PAC), former congressmen Tom Tancredo and Virgil Goode, and brand-new congressman and former mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, Lou Barletta. I attended this panel to see how far mainstream, immigration-control conservatives were prepared to go.
Mr. Tancredo, who spoke first, certainly did more than any other congressman of his time to call attention to the problem of immigration. In his talk, however, though he argued that there are reasons to oppose current levels of immigration, the GOP may not have much reason to worry about Hispanics. He claimed that more than 60 percent of Hispanics both in Arizona and in the rest of the country favored SB 1070, the Arizona bill to increase the state’s powers to combat illegal immigration. (In fact, an early 2011 poll by the Pew Hispanic center found that, nationwide, whites approved SB 1070 72 to 24 while Hispanics opposed it 70 to 27.)
Mr. Tancredo also cited a poll according to which he won more of the Hispanic vote than his Democratic opponent in his recent unsuccessful run for governor of Colorado: 41 percent of Hispanics versus 40 percent for John Hickenlooper. He claimed that Republicans will have no trouble attracting Hispanics, “so long as they make it clear that the issue is not race.” He also said he favors getting more Hispanics elected to office, so long as they are willing to fight illegal immigration.
In Mr. Tancredo’s view the only real problem is illegal immigration. Referring to the head of the Department of Homeland Security as Janet “Incompetano,” he said “it is treasonous not to secure the border; it’s impeachable.” He said that our porous border not only “puts the security of the United States at risk,” it means illegal immigrants benefit from expensive services. Every week in California, he said, 1,160 illegals get dialysis, thanks to the taxpayer. He stressed, however, that the problem is not the origins of today’s immigrants but the fact that they broke the rules to get here.
The second speaker, Virgil Goode, was more direct. A congressman from central Virginia from 2000 to 2008, he warned that current levels of immigration, both legal and illegal “will not just kill the GOP; they will kill the United States.” He decried the preferences some want to give illegals, such as the right to in-state tuition at universities. “Today being a citizen means you’re second class,” he said. “We need to make being a citizen mean something again.” Mr. Goode would stamp out illegal immigration through more effective border control, deport illegals, and sharply reduce legal immigration. He would eliminate the “diversity visa” farce, and go back to requiring that all immigrants have a sponsor who would foot the bill if they are unable to support themselves. “Obama should have to pay for that aunt of his,” he noted, to much applause. Mr. Goode did not volunteer any opinions on the current mix of immigrants, but made it very clear that he would be happy to see immigration cut essentially to zero.
Bay Buchanan seconded Mr. Goode’s view that the health of the GOP is an afterthought; immigration is killing the entire United States. She noted that the Tea Party arose because the GOP has failed the people on all matters, not just immigration. She blasted politicians and media figures who claim that securing the border is “racist,” and who make a fetish of trying to please Hispanics. The people, she reminded the audience, have been strongly opposed to mass immigration for years. “The sacred fire of liberty is entrusted to the hands of the American people,” she said, loosely quoting Washington, and noted that elites do not recognize a grass roots movement until it threatens them. Immigration can only be controlled, she said, if Americans make their voices heard at every level.
Lou Barletta spoke mostly about his experiences as mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania. After running a business for many years, he decided to run for mayor on a campaign to govern the city more efficiently. He had never thought very much about immigration but discovered that illegals were bringing drugs, crime, and blight to his city. He went to Washington in 2005 to talk to federal authorities, but they told him they would do nothing. In 2006, he pushed through a city ordinance to make it a crime knowingly to hire an illegal or rent to one. The ACLU and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund trotted out 36 lawyers to sue the city, a move that prompted a massive outpouring of financial support from around the country.
Ironically, the plaintiffs, all illegals, successfully petitioned the court to be kept anonymous and to be excused even from appearing in court — for fear of deportation. Mr. Barletta cannot even be sure these plaintiffs exist. At the trial level, a judge said the city had the right to pass the law, but this ruling was overruled on appeal. Mr. Barletta promises a fight all the way to the Supreme Court. He added that back in 2006 when Hazleton became notorious for its “racist” law, local and national politicians treated him like a leper. Now, he was proud to note, 50 other cities have passed similar ordinances. Millions of ordinary Americans, he added, strongly support him, and now that he is in Congress he hopes to speak “with a bigger megaphone.” He also touched on the economic damage immigration has done to working people, noting that the wage for meat-packers has dropped from $19 to $9 an hour because of the influx of cheap labor.
Kevin DeAnna, the founder of Youth for Western Civilization, spoke of the importance of fighting multi-culturalism where it is strongest: at universities. “What happens on the college campus today is what will happen in the country tomorrow,” he said. He noted the divergence between what polls consistently show Americans want on immigration with what they get, and warned that the system is not working for us. “This has to be an anti-system, anti-establishment, populist struggle,” he said.
Mr. DeAnna also scoffed at the libertarian principle of the free movement of people as part of the free market. “The United States is not just a market,” he said, but a nation with a shared culture, heritage, and aspirations. The market has no way of valuing the things that are most precious to us, he added, and immigration threatens them all. He pointed out that CPAC was bristling with panels and debates but that it was all meaningless chatter if Western Civilization cannot be defended against the threat of immigration.
The only reference to race on the panel was Mr. Tancredo’s explicit denial of its importance. However, CPAC itself is proof of the importance of race: There was hardly a non-white face to be seen. Whatever a CPAC audience may think, conservatism is even whiter than opera, and it will be washed away by a rising demographic tide.
Whenever a non-white did appear at CPAC, his reception gave life to the old joke: “What do you call the one black person at a conservative meeting? The keynote speaker.” Indeed, black Republican congressman Alan West filled that role, giving nervous whites just the racial assurances they needed. He chided anyone who thinks conservatives are racist, adding, “Look who is the keynote speaker.” Can this undistinguished freshman congressman from Florida really think he was chosen for his stature and accomplishments?
The Conservative Political Action Conference will have to live up to its name or it will find it no longer has a country worth conserving.
And How Far Will They Go?
Encounter with an ‘anti-racist lesbian’
Many universities celebrate something called Social Justice Week, which is an excuse to promote even more “diversity” and multi-culti nonsense than usual. At Texas A & M (TAMU), where I was once a student, we celebrated social justice in February, and part of the whooping was a lecture by Jessie Daniels of Hunter College, a typical race, class, and gender nut. She claims to be a “national expert on white racism” (is there any other kind?) and an “anti-racist lesbian.”
Her talk was co-sponsored by Joe Feagin, who teaches sociology at TAMU. Prof. Feagin has written a whole shelf of anti-white books with names like Systemic Racism, Racist America, The Many Costs of Racism, The Continuing Significance of Racism, White Racism, Living With Racism, and yet more books about racism that do not have the word in the title. He is, in short, an obsessive. Here is a sample of what he writes: “One can accurately describe the United States as a ‘total racist society’ in which every major aspect of life is shaped to some degree by core racist realities.”
Interestingly, these two star-quality anti-racists could manage an audience of only 26, which included me and two others who came to grill Prof. Daniels. I wanted to video her talk, but the anti-racist lesbian refused to go on the record. Joe Feagin, who was present, recognized me and told her to be sure not to call on me for questions.
The title of Prof. Daniels talk was “Cyber Racism,” and she said she would discuss whether “more technology equates to more social justice” She began, however, with the kind of mush these people love: “I want to stand in solidarity with all those who pursue social justice.” Social justice, she explained, has the modest goal of requiring that “we transform Texas A&M and the whole world.”
The Internet is a hotbed of “cyber racism,” she explained, because there are sites such as Stormfront, and because Russian skinheads post videos of violence they have committed against people they don’t want in their country. Prof. Daniels also called martinlutherking.org and jewwatch.org “hate sites” (but never mentioned American Renaissance), and twice she showed us a photograph of David Duke.
The US, she said, has an “abysmal record” on race and human rights and even the UN complains about it. The evidence for this “abysmal record”? The fact that 98 percent of inmates at Rikers Island in New York are black and brown. She also explained that “racism is to blame for the US financial collapse.”
Prof. Daniels says the problem with the Internet is that there is “no gate keeper;” anyone can put up anything. She says the government should keep “hate speech” off our computers, just like the French, who fined Yahoo for selling Third Reich memorabilia to Frenchmen. She noted that ever since the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Virginia v. Black it has been illegal to burn a cross because “burning crosses does not contribute to discourse in a democracy.” She worries, however, that it is possible to “burn a cross” online.
Fortunately, the authorities are waking up to the racist potential of the Internet. Prof. Daniels told us about the case of Richard Machado, who was the first person to be convicted of an e-mail hate crime. In 1996, Mr. Machado was a student at UC Irvine, and thought there were too many Asians on campus. He got the e-mail addresses of 59 Asian students and sent them a message with the subject line, “F**k You Asian S**t,” in which he threatened to “kill everyone of you personally.” In 1998, Mr. Machado was convicted and sentenced to a year in prison. Prof. Daniels is disappointed that Mr. Machado is not white but explained that he had “bought into the white supremacist framework.”
When she was finished, the left didn’t have many questions for Prof. Daniels, but we did. One of us, a lawyer, pointed out that race-based crime is very similar the world over, so why was she so critical of the US? She rejected the idea that other countries had the same kind of racial problems. Someone else in our group asked her if she could name a single claim about Martin Luther King on the martinlutherking.org website that was factually incorrect. She could not. He also wanted to know whether she would ban martinlutherking.org from the Internet if she had the power to do so. “That’s a tough call,” she said.
I had questions for her, but Prof. Feagin had warned her against me, so she refused to call on me. This was so obvious that when she called on a black man who had already asked a question, he pointed in my direction and she finally let me speak.
I said that Mr. Shabbaz of the New Black Panther Party has called for the murder of white-cracker babies and that Jose Gutierrez, a professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, says whites must either be run off the North American continent or exterminated. I wanted to know how this fits into her view of the United States as a white supremacist country. She said she had never heard of those things.
When someone asked Prof. Daniels about calls on the Internet for violence against whites, she said that this “speaks to the hegemony of white supremacy” and that “it is understandable that non-whites call for violence.”
The last question was from a student. He disputed Prof. Daniels’ claim that “white supremacists” have more power on the Internet than the NAACP. Stormfront may have had a website before the NAACP did, but the prevailing climate of political correctness gives the NAACP far more power than Stormfront. Prof. Daniels seemed stunned to be challenged by a student.
For us, the evening was a great success. It is about time loony anti-whites had some of their contradictions and double standards shoved down their throats. They are almost never challenged in class, since only anti-whites take their courses and anyone who strays off the plantation can be punished with a bad grade. But when they give a public lecture it is open season.
The next time you hear that an “anti-racist” is going to give a talk, gather a few friends and go have some fun.
Tom Short is a pen name.
|IN THE NEWS|
O Tempora, O Mores!
Mexico on the Ropes
Ciudad Juarez, just across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas, used to be a city of 1.4 million people. Now it is dying. During 2010, it had an estimated 3,000 murders, making it one of the most dangerous places on earth. As many as 230,000 people are thought to have fled in fear, as the Juarez and Sinaloa drug cartels battle for control of what was once a bustling border town.
An estimated 6,000 businesses closed that year, and many that remain pay protection money. One wholesaler explained that in September 2009 he got a visit from a group of enforcers from the Juarez Cartel, along with corrupt soldiers and police officers who work with them. They told him he would have to pay 4,000 pesos — about $330 — every week if he wanted to stay in business. “They came to see me in a very friendly way,” he reports. “Everyone is paying. Those who aren’t paying are out of business, even dead.”
Every week, the businessman gets a call in a distorted voice that gives him a bank account number. He takes cash where he is told and makes a deposit. As people cleared out of Juarez and business got worse, the enforcers kindly reduced his weekly payment to about $205. The protection racket is so widespread it now has a name: cobras del piso or “floor charges.”
The Mexican Army has taken to going door to door to see how many people have left the city, but many residents don’t answer the knock. They are afraid soldiers will shake them down, just as criminals do.
In many cases, it is easy to tell who has left town. Once people are gone, vandals strip a house of everything of value — even the light fixtures — and leave the yard filled with garbage. Many closed businesses have been torched.
Not surprisingly, those who can are moving across the river to El Paso, where there were only three violent deaths in 2010 — and a single murder-suicide accounted for two of them. [Will Weissert, Countless Juarez Residents Flee ‘Dying City,’ MSNBC, Dec. 29, 2010.]
In the meantime, the town of Guadalupe, about 40 miles to the southeast, is without a police force, after the last officer, Erika Gandara was kidnapped. Drug criminals burned down her house before they made off with her. Everyone else on the force had either been killed or ran away. Not far off is the hamlet of Praxedis Guadalupe Guerreror, where a 20-year-old college student got the job of police chief because no one else wanted it. [No Police in Mexico Town After Last Officer Kidnapped, BBC News, Dec. 28, 2010.]
Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, Chief of Staff of Iran’s military forces, sounds like an Ivy-Leaguer. In an address in late February, he said:
Today, Americans are the symbol of paradox and hypocrisy when it comes to the campaign against racism in the world. They are trying to brand themselves as the flag-bearer of democracy and human rights in the world but . . . Americans are the flag-bearers of modern racism. Although the US claims to be supporting democracy and human rights in the world, they have ignored the inalienable rights of a major segment of the country’s population due to racism. The poor and the black are second-class citizens . . .
He cited the response to Hurricane Katrina as evidence of the US government’s alleged hostility to blacks. [Commander Lambasts Modern Racism in US, FARS News Agency, Feb. 27, 2011.]
In January, security officers denied four Sikhs entry to the Quebec “national” assembly because they were carrying kirpans, six-inch long ceremonial daggers which Sikh men wear at all times and consider an object of faith rather than a weapon. The men were to testify about “reasonable accommodations” for cultural beliefs, including the wearing of veils by Muslim women. To the guards, the knives were weapons, not religious objects, and they kept the Sikhs out.
Sikhs across the country were outraged. Navdeep Bains, a Sikh member of the Canadian parliament from the left-wing Liberal Party denounced the action as “un-Canadian.” “I’ve worn my kirpan to the Supreme Court, I’ve even gone to the U.S. Congress and met with officials there and had no problems,” he says. “So I don’t see what the issue is.” Quebec’s Parti Quebecois, which controls the national assembly, says it’s just a security precaution, and that the federal parliament in Ottawa would be well-advised to adopt the same policy.
In 2006, however, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 8-0 that a Sikh student in Montreal could carry a kirpan to school, that it was not a weapon, and barring it would violate guarantees of freedom of religion. [Mike de Souza, Bloc Proposal to Ban Sikh Kirpans in Parliament Called ‘Un-Canadian,’ National Post, Jan. 19, 2011.]
Fear or Hope?
British “anti-racists” are fretting over a recent poll that found 48 percent of the population would consider voting for an “anti-immigration English nationalist party” so long as it eschewed “violence and fascist imagery.” Among the positions voters say they would support: taking on Islamic extremism, drastically reducing immigration, and passing laws requiring public buildings to fly the English flag or the Union Jack. The poll suggests that Britain may be even more receptive to nationalism than those European countries where nationalist parties are strongest, including Denmark, Holland and Austria.
The Searchlight Educational Trust, the hard-left “anti-racist” group that commissioned the poll, says that if nationalist movements have not done well in Britain “it is not because British people are more moderate, but simply because their views have not found a political articulation.”
Interestingly enough, 39 percent of “Asian Britons,” 34 percent of “white Britons” and 21 percent of “black Britons” want all immigration into the UK stopped permanently, or at least until the economy improves. Sixty-three percent of British whites, 43 percent of Asians (which in Britain means Indians and Pakistanis), and 17 percent of blacks agree with the statement that “immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country.” Just over half of respondents — 52 percent — agree that “Muslims create problems in the UK.”
The poll also has some on the left worried that the country may be seeing a “resurgence of English identity.” The evidence? Thirty-nine percent of respondents prefer to call themselves English rather than British, and just 5 percent call themselves European. Left-wing Labour MP Jon Cruddas, who campaigned against the British National Party in East London, worries that the poll has uncovered a “very real threat of a new potent political constituency built around an assertive English nationalism.” [Mark Townsend, Searchlight Poll Finds Huge Support for Far Right ‘If They Gave Up Violence,’ Guardian (London), Feb. 26, 2011.]
Demographer Steve Murdock, former director of the US Census Bureau and current director of the Hobby Center for the Study of Texas at Rice University in Houston, doesn’t see much of a future for white people in Texas. Speaking before the state House Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Mr. Murdock noted that two out of every three Texas children are already non-white and that this trend is accelerating. His conclusion? “It’s basically over for Anglos.”
The population of Texas consists of two groups: a shrinking number of rapidly aging whites and a growing number of young non-whites. Harris County, home to Houston, the fourth-largest city in the US, is shedding whites in droves, and will have half a million fewer in 2040 than it did in 2000. At the same time, its Hispanic population will have increased by 2.5 million. Statewide, the proportion of white school children will continue to decline, and is expected to reach 20 percent by 2040, down from 33.3 percent in 2010. Mr. Murdock projects Hispanic enrollment in Texas public schools to have increased 213 percent between 2000 and 2040. Many of these students will be children of illegal aliens; Mr. Murdock estimates that illegals are six percent of the state’s population.
Mr. Murdock doesn’t seem to see much of a future for Texas, either, given the low education and income levels of Hispanics. Unless trends reverse, he says that 30 percent of the state’s workforce in 2040 will not have finished high school, and that average household income will be $6,500 lower than it was in 2000 — in real 2000 dollars, not inflated 2040 dollars. “It’s a terrible situation that you are in,” he told his Hispanic audience. “I am worried.” [Texas Demographer: ‘It’s Basically Over for Anglos,’ Houston Chronicle, Feb. 24, 2011.]
According to new data from the US Census Bureau, Colorado is becoming increasingly “diverse.” In 2000, “non-Hispanic whites” were 75 percent of the state’s population. Ten years later, the figure was 70 percent, while Hispanics went from 17 to 21 percent. The number of blacks and Asians has also increased. Fifty-eight of the state’s 64 counties saw their proportion of white residents fall, meaning “diversity” isn’t coming only to cities.
Three counties, Garfield, Arapahoe, and Adams, saw their white percentages drop by more than 10 percent, and the city of Aurora became the first Colorado city with a minority majority: 53 percent. Denver was expected to join Aurora as a majority non-white city, but whites hung on at 52 percent.
In 2000, 66 percent of Coloradans under 18 were white. In 2010, only 58 percent were white, and their actual numbers declined by 3 percent. [John Ingold, Census: Colorado’s Population Substantially More Diverse, Denver Post, Feb. 24, 2011.]
Good Sense on the Bench
On October 12, 2007, the Carmike Cineplex in Dover, Delaware, was showing a popular “black-themed” movie, “Why Did I Get Married?” on three screens simultaneously. The audiences were large and overwhelmingly black. There were security guards checking ticket stubs. Before the film began, a message appeared on the screens asking patrons to turn off their cell phones, and in the largest of the three theaters, the manager, David Stewart, who is white, made the same announcement in person. Some blacks in the audience thought Mr. Stewart’s tone was “offensive and condescending, as if he were speaking to children,” and, since the crowd was heavily black, they thought he was implying that blacks don’t know how to behave in a theater.
One of the offended happened to be Juana Fuentes-Bowles, then-director of Delaware’s Human Relations Division. She stood up and announced that she was a lawyer and began taking the names of people who said they were offended by Mr. Stewart’s “racism.” She did not identify herself by title. A member of her staff then contacted the 33 offended patrons and drew up a complaint that was filed with the state’s Human Relations Commission — which was part of the division she headed. Miss Fuentes-Bowles name was on the original complaint, but she later took it off so it would not be a “distraction.”
In 2008, a three-member panel of the commission ruled that the announcement violated Delaware’s equal access law, (even though everyone in the theater was able to see the movie), because the “circumstances were hostile and one that any reasonable person would find objectionable.” It awarded each offended patron $1,500, fined the theater $5,000, and ordered it to pay more than $20,000 in attorney’s fees and costs.
The theater appealed, and on February 22 the Delaware Supreme Court threw out the commission’s ruling. The court concluded that the announcement — which was part of a since-discontinued company protocol for sold-out movies — was “reasonable” and “non-racial” in its intent, noting that the manager had made the same announcement to a largely teen-aged audience watching a horror movie the week before. The court also accepted the theater’s explanation that extra security was needed because of a recent robbery, and that staff checked ticket stubs to make sure patrons of three sold-out showings went to the right theater so everyone could have a seat.
Miss Fuentes-Bowles, who has left the Human Rights Division, could not be reached for comment. Christopher R. Portante, a spokesman for the Delaware Department of State, which oversees the Human Relations Commission, said the department “stands behind” the commission’s original ruling. [Sean O’Sullivan, Delaware Supreme Court Overturns Cinema Ruling, News Journal (Wilmington), Feb. 23, 2011.]
In 2000, the census counted 163,036 people with the surname “Washington,” 90 percent of whom are black. This is the highest black percentage for any common American name. Indeed, most Americans today assume anyone named Washington is probably black, which has led to complaints about “discrimination” from white Washingtons. Many people mistakenly assume that blacks named Washington are descended from George Washington’s slaves. In fact, the first president did not give slaves his own surname, and most freedmen simply chose for themselves.
For example, Booker T. Washington, was not one of Washington’s slaves, nor was he owned by a family named Washington. Born on a Virginia plantation, he had always just been called Booker. He wrote in his autobiography that when he first went to school, he noticed that other black children had last names and chose Washington.
Adam Goodheart, a professor at Washington College, says the choice of Washington reflected pride in American history. He continues: “That they [former slaves] would embrace the name of this person who was an imperfect hero shows there was a certain understanding of this country as an imperfect place, an imperfect experiment, and a willingness to embrace that tradition of liberty with all its contradictions.” (Editors note: This sounds like nonsense. Blacks probably chose the names of people they had heard spoken of admiringly.)
The name Washington has been black for a long time. Censuses conducted between 1880 and 1930 found that the black percentage was between 82 to 94 percent. The 2000 census found that Jefferson is the second-“blackest” name at 70 percent. Fifty-three percent of the people named Jackson are black. The most common name among blacks — 716,704 had this name — was Williams, but it was only the 16th “blackest.” Interestingly, the name Black is 68 percent white, and the name White is 19 percent black. [Jesse Washington, Washington: The ‘Blackest Name’ in America, AP, Feb. 21, 2011.]
According to a study by the Institute of International Education, although whites are just 63 percent of college enrollments they account for 81 percent of the students who study overseas. Blacks, who are 13.5 percent of college students and Hispanics, 12 percent, are just 4.2 percent and 6 percent, respectively. Peggy Blumenthal, executive vice president of the Institute of International Education, wants this to change. “It’s really a matter of persuading young students of color that this is possible for them and this is necessary for them,” she says. The institute also claims that foreign study is “crucial” to student development and even a “key to national security.”
Why don’t non-whites study abroad? Experts say some of the reasons are lack of funds, fear of “racism,” worries about delaying graduation, and the fact that non-whites are less likely to know anyone who has traveled internationally. (Presumably hopping the border does not count.) [Kathy Matheson, Educators Seek Out More Minorities to Study Abroad, AP, Feb. 21, 2011.]
|LETTERS FROM READERS|
Sir — I have long had an interest in monitoring the academic and political career of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, since both his forbears and mine are buried in the same Irish cemetery. The author of “Saving the Negro Family” in the March 2011 issue of AR is right about Moynihan. Yes, he was “a skilled flatterer” who in my opinion also showed very little political courage in his long and relatively undistinguished career in the US Senate, where he essentially functioned as a political hack. Only an academic “intellectual” such as Moynihan would be surprised to learn that if you actually paid people not to work, they would not work! In many respects Moynihan the politician was as phony as his affected Oxford accent.
Daniel Patrick Hayes, Rego Park, N.Y.
Sir — Bravo to Stephen Webster for his exhaustively researched January cover story on the 2010 midterm elections, “The Great White Wave.” He demonstrated pretty conclusively that the white vote was the overwhelming reason for the huge GOP victories. Interestingly, noted demographer William Frey at the left-of-center Brookings Institution was quoted in a recent article on the subject of blacks moving into the South in large numbers. He warned that since blacks vote Democratic, Southern politicians had better listen to them come election time. Mr. Frey, like almost every establishment demographer and political analyst, is always looking for ways to increase the electoral power of non-whites. He ignores the big elephant in the room: the votes of the great unwashed white electorate. It’s hard to believe this is anything other than racial hostility to whites (par for the course for academia).
Mr. Webster’s cover story, however, may just be the elephant that knocks down Mr. Frey’s door and barges into his room. If the elephant gets in, will he have to sit on Mr. Frey to make him understand the importance of the white vote and of his own racial animosities and biases?
Ken Reynolds, Bronx, N.Y.
Sir — I recently stumbled onto an “interesting” book in the prison library: Nature Knows No Color Line, written in the 1950s by a black man named J. A. Rogers. He apparently wrote other books on race, including one called Sex and Race.
The point of the book can be inferred from the title: that miscegenation is both natural and common. So common, in fact, that this Jim Crow-era black author claims that actual “racism” is rather rare, and that most whites either engage in race-mixing or at least approve of it. After reading the book, one would think that all whites lust after blacks, idolize them, find them beautiful, intelligent, etc., and that white women in particular are taken with black men. His evidence? Accounts of several instances of black/white pairings.
Rogers claims that most Europeans have African blood and do not realize it, and that many millions of American whites are part black. He says many blacks disappeared into the white race by “passing” as whites, thus contributing black genes to future generations. He also claims Beethoven, Goethe, and other famous Europeans were actually blacks passing for whites. I think it is safe to assume he is not taken seriously as a scholar.
I’m 39 and have been in prison for 17 years. Younger whites who end up here tell me “times have changed,” that miscegenation is on the rise, and that “white girls date black guys left and right.” Granted, I’ve been inside a long time, but I have managed to keep open a channel to the outside world. I am not convinced that race-mixing is all that prevalent.
As AR itself has reported, marriage statistics continue to show that of all groups, white women are least likely to marry outside their race. Since people tend to marry the people they date, I assume this holds true for dating as well.
White men are naturally conscious of white women. Therefore, when we see a white woman with a non-white man, it sticks in our consciousness more than other mixed-race parings. For example, we don’t generally care when we see an Indian man with a Chinese woman. At the end of a day, if we see three or four white woman/black man pairings, it will seem as if we saw them everywhere, forgetting that we may have passed several hundred white couples at the same time. In the end, white women recognize that white men are smarter, better looking, and more reliable than men of other races, and the overwhelming majority will stick with their race. With all due respect to Mr. Rogers, nature does indeed know color, and quite well at that.
Eric Schroeder, Lawrenceville Correctional Center, Lawrenceville, Va.
Sir — Why, oh why, do you sprinkle full stops — periods, I think you call them — over or around (almost) every caption and sub-heading in your otherwise superbly literate magazine? They are utterly unnecessary, pointless, and — to me at least — infuriating!
Anthony Young, London, England