|American Renaissance magazine|
|Vol. 14, No. 2||February 2003|
Ethnic Genetic Interests
The scientific basis for racial activism.
Racially-conscious whites are often frustrated that people of European descent do not understand a simple fact that others take for granted: that it is normal for an ethnic group or race to want to survive and to avoid displacement by others. Unlike people of other races, whites seem to demand some kind of objective, rather than subjective, reasons for survival. Activists have long hoped a respected academic would offer an objective, scientific justification for the defense by whites of their own ethno-racial interests. The wait is over. Dr. Frank Salter of the Max Planck Society has published just such a justification in the peer-reviewed journal Population and Environment (Vol. 24, No. 2, November 2002, pages 111-140). I believe Dr. Salter’s tour-de-force, “Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is it Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?”, is the single most important recent intellectual contribution to ethno-racial studies.
“Mainstream” discussions about immigration usually consider only secondary questions such as economics, crime, culture, etc. They ignore the ultimate interest of a people: genetic continuity, which is the focus of Dr. Salter’s paper. In the very first sentence he asks the central question: “Does ethnic competition over territory pay off in terms of reproductive fitness?”
From an evolutionary standpoint “fitness” means “reproductive fitness,” or the propagation of distinctive genes from one generation to the next. Living organisms can be seen as the vehicles by which this propagation occurs. Thus, as Dr. Salter explains, adaptive behavior “maintains or increases the frequency of one’s distinctive genes in the population.” Family or kin share many of the same distinctive genes, so a person’s fitness is increased by the survival and reproductive success of his kin.
This is true also for ethnic groups or “ethnies,” which is the term Dr. Salter prefers. Like families, members of an ethny have more distinctive genes in common with each other than they do with other populations; the same can be said of members of the same race. Although the genetic kinship of ethny members is more diluted than that of family members, ethnies are large reservoirs of genetic interests for their members. Therefore, just as a person has a great genetic interest in the well-being of his family, so does a German have for Germans, an Italian for Italians, etc. In this sense, it can be as adaptive to support one’s ethno-racial group as to support one’s family.
A defined territory is crucial for the survival of an ethny. According to Dr. Salter, “The special quality of a defended territory is that it insulates a population from the vicissitudes of demographic disturbances . . .” Acquisition and defense of territory are therefore an integral part of the tribal strategy of humans. The passionate relationship between a people and its homeland has been constant throughout history, and, as Dr. Salter points out, a people can suffer many setbacks, but as long as it retains its own territorial space, it can recover.
In the long run, only territory ensures survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by aliens, brings ethnic diminishment or destruction — precisely what is happening in the “multicultural” West today. A large part of Dr. Salter’s work in this paper is a quantitative analysis of this negative genetic impact.
Dr. Salter’s analysis is based on two concepts: carrying capacity and genetic kinship. Carrying capacity is the maximum population that can live in a given territory. Although technology and increased economic efficiency can increase carrying capacity, there is a practical limit above which further population growth is not possible. Many ecologists believe we are approaching, or have surpassed, the practical carrying capacity of the earth. Even if these ecologists are wrong about the earth as a whole, it is clear that carrying capacity has already been exceeded in those areas where over-population has badly damaged the environment or depleted natural resources.
Immigration undermines the interests of natives even if their territory has not reached its carrying capacity. For example, the carrying capacity of the United States is probably significantly greater than its current population. However, one day its carrying capacity will be reached, and if at that point part of the country is filled with the descendants of today’s immigrants, natives will have no room into which they can expand. In other words, even if the carrying capacity of the United States is as high as 600 million or more, if that population figure is ever reached, some portion will be the descendants of genetically alien immigrants. The presence of millions of non-whites will make the parts of the United States they occupy unavailable to whites. We may reach carrying capacity later rather than sooner, but since the earth is a “closed system,” it will happen eventually.
Nearly 30 years ago Garrett Hardin (BioScience, October 1974) wrote that over-population will limit population growth (as we see today in China), and he also pointed out that the cost of immigration falls “most heavily on potential parents, some of whom would have to postpone or forgo having their (next) child because of the influx of immigrants.” Immigration may not limit your decisions about having children, but some day it will limit the choices of your descendants.
Dr. Salter notes that immigrants can change the carrying capacity of their new nation. Intelligent, hard-working immigrants could in theory raise the carrying capacity by increasing the efficiency at which resources are used (though there is still a cost to natives, as we will see below). Incompetent immigrants are a drain on resources, and lower the carrying capacity. Readers can judge for themselves which kind of immigrants are arriving in the West.
The other concept central to Dr. Salter’s paper is genetic kinship. Even though all humans share many genes, kinship is a measure of the genetic similarities and differences above and beyond this general gene sharing; it measures the relative frequencies of ethnically distinctive genes. Kinship values can be either positive or negative. If individuals (or groups) share more genes than is typical of a population, then the kinship is positive; if they share fewer genes than average, kinship is negative. Genetic kinship can be mathematically derived from studies of the genetic variation, or distance, between populations.
The genetic data that form the basis of Dr. Salter’s quantitative analysis are from the work of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza’s 1994 book The History and Geography of Human Genes, which examined the frequencies of genetic variations in a broad range of human populations. In general, the data are sound, and show the genetic distances between different populations. They can also be used to measure the extent of the damage alien immigration does to the genetic interests of natives.
For the sake of simplicity, Dr. Salter assumes immigrants have no effect on carrying capacity, and that they have the same birthrates as natives — very conservative assumptions. Dr. Salter then asks: What is the genetic effect of displacing 10,000 natives by 10,000 immigrants? What happens to the frequencies of ethnic-specific genes? Given that members of an ethny want their nation to be composed of their people, and to leave behind, after they die, as many copies of their ethnic-specific genes in the population as possible, how much genetic damage does immigration cause?
It is important to note that Dr. Salter treats the arrival of immigrants, not as a simple addition to the population, but as a one-for-one displacement of natives. This is methodologically correct, because when a nation reaches its carrying capacity, it is the presence of immigrants and their descendents that makes it impossible for natives to increase their numbers. What may not appear to be one-for-one displacement today will, in retrospect, be seen to be precisely that.
Dr. Salter expresses the loss of genetic ethnic interest in units he calls “child-equivalents.” In other words, Dr. Salter is asking: For any given member of the native population, what is the number of lost children that would equal the loss of his ethnic genetic interests caused by the arrival of a certain number of aliens? Note that we are not talking about actual children, but gene equivalents put into the form of the genetic parent-child relationship. Put differently, the arrival of immigrants from other ethnies will change the genetic character of a population, and make it more alien to every member of the native ethny. The amount of genetic change, from the point of view of any given member of the native ethny, can be calculated as the equivalent of the number of children not born to that person.
An example will make this clearer. Dr. Salter begins by considering the English as the native population, and examines the effects of the immigration of 10,000 Danes, an ethny that is genetically very close to the English. Replacing 10,000 Englishmen with 10,000 Danes changes the genetic characteristics of the population so much that the resulting “post-displacement” population differs from the undisturbed population by the equivalent of an Englishman (or woman) “not having had” 167 children! Again, we are not talking about actual children, but of the genetic equivalent.
Let us consider other examples. What if the immigrants were Bantus — a population very genetically distant from the English — rather than Danes? Here the genetic cost to any given Englishman of the arrival of 10,000 Bantus is the equivalent of 10,854 lost children! Clearly, the extent of the genetic transformation of a population depends on the genetic distance between the native and immigrant populations.
What if the level of immigration were larger, and more in keeping with the massive displacement of Western peoples we see today? The English population is roughly 50 million. If 12.5 million were replaced by an equal number of Danes, the genetic loss to an Englishman would be the equivalent of 209,000 children not born; if the immigrants were from India, the loss would be 2.6 million children; if the immigrants were Bantus, 13 million. These figures are not guesses or estimates; they are objective, mathematical results based on genetic data accepted by the scientific community. Of course, all these numbers would apply in the reverse as well — genetic damage to Bantus or Indians if Englishmen were to come to live among them in large numbers — but immigration does not flow in that direction.
While plunging birthrates may be genetically damaging for European-derived peoples, their replacement by genetically alien immigrants is much worse. A falling birthrate reduces the population but does not transform it genetically, and a future increase in birthrates can always make up for the loss. Once immigrants have established themselves in a native territory their genes are a permanent addition. From the standpoint of genetic ethnic interests, the idea that “immigration makes up for low native birthrates” is pathological.
Why does immigration cause such large genetic losses? Dr. Salter writes: “Random members of an ethnic group are concentrated stores of each other’s distinctive genes, just as children and cousins are concentrated stores. Some ethnies are so different genetically that they amount to large negative stores of those distinctive genes. Also, as described above, migration has a double impact on fitness, first by reducing the potential ceiling of the native population, and secondly by replacing those lost individuals’ familiar genes with exotic varieties.”
Dr. Salter also stresses that this loss is not somehow reduced by being spread over the entire native population. The loss in terms of genetic equivalents (e.g., 167 child-equivalents in the English-Danish example) reflects the change in population from the point of view of every member of the native populace. Dr. Salter writes: “For a native woman it is equivalent to the loss of her children and grandchildren, for a native man it is equivalent to the loss of hischildren and grandchildren, though on a much larger scale” (emphasis in original).
Dr. Salter has calculated the number of immigrants of any group necessary to reduce the genetic interests of a random member of a native group by one child-equivalent. (See table below, taken from Dr. Salter’s paper.) For Europeans, an average of only 1.1 African, or 1.7 Northeast Asian immigrants is sufficient for the loss of one child-equivalent.
Charity and Heroism
It is well understood that within-group charity is potentially adaptive because it encourages the survival of kindred genes. Dr. Salter explains that self-sacrificial “heroism” that preserves one’s group genetic interests can also be adaptive. For example, Dr. Salter points out that “an act of charity or heroism” performed by an Englishman that prevented 10,000 Danes from replacing 10,000 Englishmen would be worthwhile genetically even if the Englishman sacrificed his life and with it the potential of having up to 167 children! Preventing replacement by Bantus would justify an even larger sacrifice, given the greater potential loss of genetic interests. It is clear that pro-white activism intended to avoid displacement is normal and adaptive, and justified by rational analysis. It is multicultural surrender that is pathological, as all peoples in all periods of history (except for whites in the 20th century) have instinctively known. Men have not had to be taught to die for their countries; the preservation of their land and people has been more important to them than life itself.
What are the genetic costs of immigration and displacement among whites? In general, as one would expect, Europeans are genetically closer to each other than to non-Europeans since Europe is, as Dr. Salter writes: “a generally racially homogenous region.” Within Europe, geographically close populations tend to be even more similar. The table below shows, for 26 European ethnies, the number of immigrants from other ethnies required to reduce the genetic interests of a native by one child-equivalent. The greater the genetic similarity, the larger the number of immigrants required to reduce genetic interest, and these data are consistent with what one would expect.
Germans and Swiss are closely related, so it would take 125 Swiss immigrants to reduce a German’s genetic interests by “one child.” The same effect will occur with 83.7 Belgians, 78.5 Dutch or Danish, 57.2 Englishmen, 33.3 Italians, 18.5 Spaniards, or 9.1 Greeks. Italians are more similar to, and less damaged by, French (37.1) or Germans (33.3) or Spaniards (20.9) than they are by Danes (17.7) or Swedes (13.5).
There is a tendency for European ethnies from islands (e.g., Sardinians and Icelanders, but not the English) to be somewhat more genetically distant from other European populations than might be expected. This is probably because of genetic drift in these small, relatively isolated populations rather than the admixture of non-European genes. Also, Europeans from southeast Europe seem slightly more distant, as are other specific groups, such as Finns and Basques. However, even these more outlying groups are within the European range. Dr. Salter concludes: “Immigration between ethnies of the same race can still be maladaptive for the receiving population, but the threshold is typically 10 to 100 times that of inter-racial immigration.”
Problems of Multiculturalism
Dr. Salter notes that Americans of European descent are a declining proportion of their nation’s population, and that this is a clear and serious threat to their genetic interests. Miscegenation only makes matters worse. Dr. Salter points out that miscegenation may benefit the genetic interests of non-white immigrants, for they are diluting the native gene pool while the gene pools of their own racially-exclusive homelands remain intact. As regards genetic dilution, a biracial child contains and reproduces fewer of the distinctive genes from any one of its parents than does a monoracial child. In other words, a child born to a man and women of the same ethny is genetically closer to its parents than is a mixed-race child, because the parents have many distinctive genes in common, and the child is therefore a combination of genes that make it close to both parents. A mixed-race child is genetically more distant from both parents because half its genes come from a parent from a different — and genetically distant — ethny.
The relationship can be understood this way. A parent has a certain base-line kinship with his child no matter who the other parent is, but is genetically closer to his children if he marries within his ethny. This gain in parental kinship is foregone to some extent when the other parent is of a different race or ethny. An average European white who has a child with a typical African foregoes 66 percent of the parental kinship he would have gained if he had had the child with another European. An Englishman who picks a Danish rather than an English spouse loses only one percent of the parental kinship to be gained from an English spouse. Choosing a Bantu mate would mean the loss of 92 percent of the parental kinship that would have been gained with an English mate. This figure, which is close to 100 percent, raises the theoretical possibility that if an Englishman has a mixed, English-Bantu child, the child will receive so many non-European genes from the Bantu parent that the Englishman is only slightly more genetically related to his own child than he is to a random stranger from his own ethny.
The table below shows the amount of parental kinship that would be gained by endogamous marriage as opposed to the mixed marriages depicted in the table. Africans and Pacific Islanders are so genetically distant that cross-marriages between these groups lose 100 percent of the kinship gain achieved through endogamy. European Caucasoids who mate with Northeast Asians lose 38 percent of the kinship they would have gained through same-race marriage.
Dr. Salter notes for the record that this analysis ignores potential benefits from so-called “hybrid vigor.” I see no evidence of such benefits in mating across wide racial divides; I see no increase in intelligence, health, or creative ability in the mixed-race populations of, say, Latin America or Central Asia as compared to original Europid or Mongolid stocks. And there is absolutely no evidence for any “vigor” which could make up for a 66 percent or 92 percent decrease in paternal kinship. This is a powerful argument in favor of racially endogamous mating: You are biologically closer and more similar to a child if your mate is of the same race than if your mate is from a different race.
Dr. Salter notes that the genetic damage done by the post-1965 immigration to America “has decreased white genetic interests more than all American war losses combined.” Why does it continue? Why does the white population allow it, while non-white peoples of other nations forbid immigration and preserve their group interests? Dr. Salter rejects the notion that white Americans want to be displaced; they may not actively resist displacement, but they surely do not welcome their own dispossession.
Perhaps the economic benefits of immigration raise carrying capacity and outweigh the costs. Dr. Salter notes that there are heavy economic costs to immigration, of which immigration-control activists are well aware. He also points out that even if there were economic benefits, the economic argument can be stretched to absurdity: If immigrants benefit natives by boosting the economy and raising the carrying capacity, why not maximize economic gain by replacing all natives with immigrants? Dr. Salter asks: “Is an economy meant to serve people or be an end unto itself?” If natives are being displaced, do they benefit from economic growth?
Dr. Salter asks us to imagine American Indians of the year 1600 being given a choice between mass European immigration and fast economic growth, coupled with eventual displacement by Europeans; or keeping America for themselves with much slower economic growth. The choice is obvious. Nothing can take the place of having a continent for one’s posterity; nothing can replace the loss of a people’s territory. Thus, economic explanations fail.
Dr. Salter observes that white Americans have, in the name of multiculturalism, engaged in a “unilateral withdrawal from ethnic competition,” with devastating results for their genetic interests. The majority also suffers from minority “free-riding” of two kinds. Minorities that cluster at the bottom of the social scale form an underclass that increases its reproductive fitness by absorbing resources and welfare from the majority, making the majority pay for its own genetic dispossession and loss of fitness. At the same time, more competitive minorities can manipulate public policy in their ethnic favor and against the interests of the majority.
What does Dr. Salter suggest as a possible solution? He proposes ethno-racial states in which shared ethnicity is a requirement for citizenship and in which the state “unambiguously serves the ethnic interests of the majority.” This is completely opposed to the current fad of “constitutional patriotism,” or the nation as an “idea” or “community of values.” Dr. Salter rightly sees such aracial “patriotic” schemes as “a formula for reconciling ethnic majorities to their own demise,” while serving minority and elite interests. Particularly damaging to majority interests is the fusion of “constitutional patriotism” with “multiculturalism,” as in today’s America, where majority displacement is thought to be of no importance as long as “freedom and democracy” are maintained. Such ideas are now being promoted in Europe as well, where some promote the view that Germany and France are “idea nations”!
Ethno-racial states are the only way for Western majorities to promote their ethnic interests. But what is the optimal size of an ethno-state? From the standpoint of maximizing and preserving ethnic genetic interests, smaller populations would have a “higher concentration of distinctive genes.” On other hand, economic and military necessities probably require something larger, so there must be a balance between ethnic interests and national viability. What to do with minorities living in such states? Assimilation is one possibility, but Dr. Salter notes that for the minorities this is an “evolutionarily uncertain” proposition. I might also add that it dilutes the majority gene pool. A better option would be federalism, in which concentrations of minority populations have local autonomy. Best of all is to prevent the minority problem to begin with by restricting immigration. Of course, if minorities have their own completely separate nation-states, they are no longer minorities.
Needless to say, there are different kinds of “minority.” Blacks are a minority in the USA, as Russians are a minority in the Baltic states, but the relative genetic distances are very different. Assimilation may be possible when numbers and genetic distances are small.
Another problem is the possibility of majority-majority “free-riding,” whether that of a welfare-dependent underclass or a privileged elite. Dr. Salter stresses the need for a bio-social contract between classes of an ethny, a contract that balances normal individual competition with the need for cooperation in defending larger ethnic interests. Dr. Salter theorizes a state in which ethnic genetic interests are considered a “collective good” that the state manages as part of a group’s “evolutionary strategy.” This would require protections against free-riding elites who may distort policy for their own narrow class interests.
Dr. Salter’s paper can be summarized as follows. Ethnies (and races) are large reservoirs of genetic interests for group members. Ethnic genetic interests are real and vitally important. Genetic kinship can be calculated, and the harm to any person’s (or group’s) ethnic genetic interests resulting from alien immigration can be quantified. Immigration of even closely-related groups has a negative impact on genetic interests, and this detrimental influence increases rapidly with greater genetic distance. Putting this detrimental impact in the form of “child-equivalents” is a particularly powerful way of demonstrating these effects. If people of European descent understood that every non-white face they see is diminishing their personal and group interests they might begin to understand they are being ill-served, at a fundamental genetic level, by non-European immigration and the ideology of multiculturalism.
Finally, Dr. Salter’s paper stands as an objective, scientifically sound justification for the activist pursuit of ethnic and racial interests. Liberals cannot deny the facts discussed here, nor can they deny that they point to the necessity of European ethno-racial nationalism. The formation of ethnic-based national states is the most efficient way of safeguarding ethnic genetic interests.
Ecologically-minded liberals should also heed Dr. Salter’s work, for only when Third-World populations are made to bear the consequences of their own reproductive irresponsibility will they, and the world as a whole, establish population policies that protect the environment. Closing off the “safety valve” of Third-World immigration to the West should be as attractive to the sincere left as to the racial right.
Dr. Salter’s work must be widely disseminated among thinking whites. He will soon be publishing a monograph that discusses the political and social consequences of these ideas at greater length. Publicizing this information will be of paramount importance.
Subjective Reasons are Sufficient
Comments on Mr. Rienzi’s article.
I share Mr. Rienzi’s appreciation for the power and novelty of Dr. Salter’s approach to the study of group genetic interests. I also agree that Dr. Salter’s unit of measure for the genetic effects of immigration — the child-equivalent — is extremely compelling. However, I am less optimistic than Mr. Rienzi that this analysis will win many whites over to the cause of racial preservation.
Calculations of genetic damage are irrelevant to people who are unaffected by the racial and cultural transformation of America that is taking place before their very eyes. Whites who are oblivious to open talk of reconquista, whites who believe Somalis and Cambodians bring badly-needed diversity to American towns, whites who claim to think race is a “social construct,” whites who believe that because all people are children of God they are therefore interchangeable — such whites cannot be made to care about genetic distance and child-equivalents. This is an abstraction that is completely meaningless to them.
We are the only race with governments that officially and deliberately ignore the call of racial kinship. No other race welcomes strangers into its homelands and then grants them racial preferences over the children of natives. No other race subsidizes racially alien underclasses and then blames itself for the fecklessness, incompetence and violence of these underclasses. No other race measures virtue by how many advantages it can offer to people as biologically unlike itself as possible, or by how loudly and persistently it can heap scorn on its own history, traditions, and ancestors. Members of no other race routinely adopt children of other races.
For such people, the dilution or destruction of our genetic uniqueness is good news! In an age when even “conservatives” say miscegenation is the only long-term solution to the race problem, Bantu matings are the quickest route to a purified, raceless America.
Racial solidarity is natural for all people. Only constant anti-”racist” propaganda keeps it in check. But if the obviously destructive consequences of “tolerance” and “diversity” do not open the eyes of whites to the suicidal course their rulers have chosen for them, charts of comparative racial distance are unlikely to either.
There are many routes by which whites awaken to an understanding of race, but they usually start with some kind of direct experience: being thrown in with blacks at school or in the army, watching the neighborhood turn Mexican, traveling to Africa or South America and sensing how profoundly alien the inhabitants are. Only the most cerebral whites will be persuaded by Dr. Salter’s analysis rather than by the evidence of their senses.
By the same token, whites who already understand the crisis our race faces do not need a quantitative analysis of genetic damage in order to oppose immigration. They oppose it because they see clearly that non-whites are different from us, and that their arrival in large numbers threatens our peoplehood, our culture, and our nation. For them, our immigration policy is like handing over the house of their fathers to strangers and enemies. They will read Dr. Salter’s analysis with a combination of fascination and horror, and it may deepen their commitment to the defense of our race, but it will not change their basic understanding of the necessity for racial consciousness and activism.
At the beginning of Mr. Rienzi’s article he writes that whites seem to require objective rather than subjective reasons to favor their own race, and a great many whites do act this way. They seem to believe that the desire to see their race survive and flourish is not only an insufficient motive for action but a vicious one. In fact, much as Mr. Rienzi would like to have found one in Dr. Salter’s paper, there are no objective reasons that justify our survival. One could draw up a list of our contributions to culture and science but non-whites would not agree that this justified our continued existence as a race. Mr. Rienzi recognizes this when he describes the choice that could have been offered to the American Indians in 1600. Without whites, Indians would not have modern medicine, representative government, classical music, television or McDonald’s hamburgers, but Mr. Rienzi and Dr. Salter think they would have gladly traded all that for the Stone Age if they could have kept their continent.
If there were some objective reason our race should survive, people of other races would presumably recognize it and work to ensure our survival. They recognize no such reasons and we should not expect them to. Even more to the point, we should not look for or expect to find objective reasons to justify our survival.
We do not need objectivereasons to favor our own children over the children of strangers. Other children may be objectively superior to ours, but that makes no difference at all. We love our children because they are ours. To say that they share our genes is just another way of saying they are ours; it is not an objective reason to love them and sacrifice for them. Likewise, to say we share genes with members of our race is to say only that they are part of our extended family; it is not an objective reason why we or anyone else should care whether they live or die. Of course, those whites whose racial consciousness has not been beaten down care passionately about the survival of their race, but it is no more objective than the desire of the fox to eat the squirrel or the squirrel’s desire to outrun the fox. In nature there are no objective reasons that justify the survival of anything.
This is not to say, of course, that subjective reasons are not good enough. They are certainly good enough for non-whites. For them, the importance of racial survival and the legitimacy of pursuing it at the expense of other races are obvious. Only a fool would question them.
Midway through the 20th century, whites — and only whites — lost their instinct for survival as a people. If they do not regain that instinct they will see their lands divided up among groups whose instincts are as strong as ever. Territory is held only by people who are willing to hold it, and loss of will is an invitation to invasion.
Whites who have lost their racial consciousness are not likely to find it again by reading carefully-argued articles by Mr. Rienzi or Dr. Salter. For most people, racial consciousness emerges slowly and uncertainly, through dim flashes of insight that come when the steel of one race glances off the flint of another. It is only when this dim, intuitive awareness has begun that facts and rational arguments have any effect. It is the work of American Renaissance, its writers and readers, to take this dim awareness, to extend it, clarify it, and give it a form and solidity that will resist the anti-white, anti-”racist” propaganda of our time.
Dr. Salter’s insights give us no objective reasons for survival, but they have an important role in this secondary process of shaping and strengthening a consciousness that has already begun to take form. It is in this context that AR is proud to present Mr. Rienzi’s introduction to a paper that promises to be only the first chapter in a very important body of work.
The Humiliation of Trent Lott
The perfect tale of sordidness for our times.
Trent Lott is off the front pages now, and the sorry story of his humiliation is drifting into history. The press has even gone back to reporting on him with straight news stories that do not mention his disgrace. In January, he accepted the chairmanship of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, and was likely to be named to the Select Committee on Intelligence. Americans love a scandal but have short memories, and if Mr. Lott is reelected to the Senate in 2006 there is no reason to think he doesn’t have plenty of politics left in him. But even if the furor eventually leaves few marks on Trent Lott, it has exposed the truly shabby, cowardly, groveling nature of the American political class, especially of that part of it that claims to be “conservative.”
The senator from Mississippi was brought down by only 45 words, spoken last Dec. 5 at a 100th birthday celebration for the retiring senator from South Carolina:
I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.
These words were heard by reporters and even broadcast by C-SPAN, but there was at first no outcry. Democratic hatchetmen Sidney Blumenthal and James Carville tried to drum up a scandal, but at first only a few partisan websites took up the cry. Editors at the big-time media dismissed the comments as birthday banter. Although he made his remarks on a Thursday, there was so little initial opposition that Mr. Lott did not refer to them again until the next Monday, when he explained they were just part of a “lighthearted celebration.” Only after reporters called up “conservatives” who were not at the party, and got them to treat Mr. Lott’s remarks as if they were an endorsement of segregation, did the story begin to grow. As more and more “conservatives” piled on, virtually every commentator lined up to kick Mr. Lott. The senator went into his Bataan Death March of self-abasement, but lost his job as Senate Majority Leader anyway.
What did Mr. Lott mean by his Dec. 5 remarks, and what was the significance of the whooping, whining, and groveling that followed? The first question is more difficult than the second. Somewhere deep within today’s blow-dried Tent Lott there may be a realization that integration has gone badly wrong and that his ancestors had reasons for setting up society as they did. Mr. Lott, was born in 1941 and grew up in firmly segregationist Mississippi, but he is a born politician who has tried to please so many different crowds he may have no convictions left at all. Politics and flirtations with racial consciousness appear to have been part of his makeup ever since he was a teenager.
In high school, Mr. Lott was so busy pumping students for votes for school elections he knew more underclassmen than anyone else in his senior class. At Ole Miss, he was president of the Intra-Fraternity Council, and in the early 1960s helped win the fight to keep his fraternity Sigma Nu segregated. He was at Ole Miss when whites rioted to keep James Meredith from integrating the campus, and though he opposed admitting blacks, he made sure his 120 frat brothers stayed home rather than riot. “Yes,” he told Time magazine in 1997, “you could say that I favored segregation then. But I don’t now.” He was a cheerleader, and gloried in marching the Confederate flag — then the school banner — onto the football field. He majored in public administration, the clear choice for aspiring politicians.
He went on to law school at Ole Miss, and in 1968, with a fresh Juris Doctorate, became administrative assistant to William Colmer, the Democratic congressman from his hometown of Pascagoula. Colmer was a staunch segregationist, who like many Southern congressmen, bitterly fought the “civil rights” and immigration legislation of the 1960s. In 1972, Colmer anointed Mr. Lott his successor, even though Mr. Lott ran as a Republican.
Mr. Lott was certainly useful in Congress. His first piece of legislation was an anti-busing bill. In 1981, he filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing the IRS’s ruling revoking Bob Jones University’s tax exemption, which it had enjoyed since 1927, because it prohibited interracial dating on religious grounds. That same year, he voted against extending the Voting Rights Act (which, despite its name, is a set of voting restrictions that apply only to the South), and in 1983 he was one of 98 House members who voted against making Martin Luther King’s birthday a national holiday.
In 1988, Mr. Lott won a seat in the Senate, where he continued to be useful. In 1997, he led the opposition to William Clinton’s appointment of William Lann Lee as head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, arguing that Mr. Lee’s policies discriminated against whites. In 1998, Mr. Lott voted for an amendment (which failed) that would have eliminated the largest federal minority set-aside program. In 2001, he cast the only vote in the Senate against appointing Judge Roger Gregory as the first black to sit on the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (he said it was a matter of principle to oppose recess appointments).
So, does Mr. Lott favor segregation or doesn’t he? Given his upbringing and career, he cannot help but have heard every argument — boneheaded to sophisticated — for racial separation. His critics point out that back in 1980, campaigning with Strom Thurmond, he had already spoken what later proved to be the fatal words: “You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.” Enemies have also pounced on a 1998 speech at the dedication of the Jefferson Davis presidential library in Mississippi, in which he said, “Sometimes I feel closer to Jefferson Davis than any other man in America.”
People whose job it is to detect “racism” take it for granted that Mr. Lott is a segregationist who has been quietly spreading his poison as best he could. However, Mr. Lott has been in politics without a break ever since he got out of school, and has probably always been ready to sacrifice a conviction to win a vote. He was in Congress only five years before he got himself elected into the Republican leadership hierarchy, and later became whip, or Republican second-in-command. In the Senate, he politicked his way into various positions, including majority whip, before he got the top job. He has been running popularity contests all his life, and like any successful politician, knows how to tell people what they want to hear. What he said on Dec. 5 was probably nothing more than the best bit of flattery he could think up at the moment, and almost certainly reflects no serious thought about anything at all.
Mr. Lott’s willingness to trim and backpedal became painfully clear when the uproar began, and it looked like he might lose his position as majority leader. At first he said his support of Strom Thurmond’s 1948 presidential campaign had been all about states’ rights, limited government, and anti-communism. When that didn’t work, he insisted he had not intended to “embrace discarded policies of the past.” “I’ve asked and am asking for forbearance and forgiveness as I continue to learn from my own mistakes,” he told a crowd of reporters in Pascagoula. At one point he went running to Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice — blacks with whom he has no doubt had cordial relations — hoping they would throw him a bone. They cut him dead.
But it was during his 30-minute appearance on Black Entertainment Television (BET) that he behaved the most odiously. He insulted his ancestors by declaring that the racial regimen in the South had been “wrong and wicked,” and that he himself had been part of an “immoral leadership.” He praised Ole Miss for doing away with the Confederate battle flag he once claimed to revere. He said that if he had it to do over again he would vote for the King national holiday. But his most transparent lie was that he now favors affirmative action. “Across the board?” asked his astonished interviewer. “Absolutely,” replied Mr. Lott. He then bragged that as majority leader he had the power to push through programs that would help blacks and other minorities. Gushing like a new convert, he said he was talking to black legislators about starting a “task force of reconciliation” that would busy itself with racial healing.
This cannot have fooled anyone. It is just not possible to believe that Trent Lott, aside from whether he wants segregation, should suddenly become an apostle of the racial preferences he has fought all his life, and seriously wants to gin up a “task force of reconciliation.” Are we supposed to imagine him holding hands in a circle with the Black Congressional Caucus, singing “Kum ba yah” and “We Shall Overcome”?
Why was Mr. Lott prepared to twist and wriggle and lie and eat dirt if he thought it would save his job? Probably because if you strip this man of political office there is nothing left. Trent Lott Middle School in his hometown got its name because Mr. Lott is a big bug in Washington, not because he is a man of courage or conviction. The same is true for Trent Lott International Airport just outside of town, the Trent Lott Leadership Institute at Ole Miss, and the Trent Lott scholarship series at University of Southern Mississippi. Even Jackson State University — the black school — has a Trent Lott GeoSpatial and Visualization Research Center, of all things. Men with dignity do not allow their names to be plastered on buildings during their lifetimes, but pork, power, and patronage are Mr. Lott’s meat and drink, and there is apparently no dishonor he would not swallow if he could keep his job. And this is a man who claims to feel closer to Jefferson Davis than to any American dead or alive.
Trent Lott has shown us how completely lust for power and pride of position can corrupt a man. Power is such intoxication to him that he will say and do anything to keep high office in a government he always complained was too big and powerful anyway. This kind of transparent power-madness alone should tell us how diseased our ruling class has become. The rest of the Republicans and “conservatives” are no better. They rose up in righteous anger to tell us Mr. Lott is such a moral leper he cannot possibly lead the Republicans. But then shouldn’t such a wretch resign from the Senate? Doesn’t Mississippi, scene of so many painful battles in the long war for racial brotherhood, deserve a senator who is not a white supremacist? Why, no! If Mr. Lott left the Senate, Mississippi’s Democratic governor would appoint a Democrat to take his place, and the Republicans would lose their majority! An unmasked bigot must therefore continue to represent the state with the highest percentage of blacks, so Republicans can continue to enjoy their committee chairmanships and perks of power. They are, in other words, just as craven, unprincipled, and power-hungry as Mr. Lott.
And what does the frenzy for Trent Lott’s scalp tell us about the country as a whole? We have perhaps the clearest example yet of thought crime and punishment. No one has suggested Mr. Lott ever harmed a black person or even wanted to harm one. His voting record is little different from that of Sen. Donald Nickels of Oklahoma, who was first mooted as his replacement, or of Sen. William Frist, who did replace him. In other words, Mr. Lott has done nothing wrong. What he did was say a few things that could be interpreted as supporting segregation. He apologized publicly no fewer than five times. He begged for forgiveness in the most piteous way. However there is no forgiveness for people who might be “racists,” and he became the first Senate majority leader in history to be forced out under a cloud. As black Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy pointed out happily, “It lays down a marker for the parameters of acceptable sentiment and opinion.” “It’s important that certain things are made verboten in electoral politics,” he added. That neatly sums it up: Blacks decide what is verboten and white “conservatives” enforce their orders.
The whole affair is unspeakably sordid. Apart from the usual buffoons, it was blacks who defended Mr. Lott most decently. The only black Republican in Congress, outgoing Rep. Julius Ceasar Watts of Oklahoma, said the remarks were nothing more than “complimentary humor that often accompanies personal tributes.”
Walter Scott, a black businessman in Jackson, Mississippi agreed:
The fact of the matter is he was conducting a birthday party for a man that had reached the age of 100 and was giving him his due. I’ve known Trent Lott for 25 years. He’s not a racist.
John Lewis, the black congressman from Georgia who is a veteran “civil rights” activist, said after the BET spectacle:
I’d like to come down on his side, giving him a chance. I’m not one of those calling for him to step down . . . We all make mistakes, we all make blunders. It’s very much in keeping with the philosophy and discipline of nonviolence to forgive and move on.
Were any whites as gracious? No, they were quick to demonstrate their moral purity by ganging up on a “racist.” They rushed to prove that in politics and public commentary there are no legitimate white interests, and no sympathy for anyone who even suggests there are. White conservatives swore Mr. Lott was a loathesome exception; white liberals swore he was the loathesome rule. Here is former President William Clinton, trying to tar all Republicans: “I think that the way the Republicans have treated Senator Lott is pretty hypocritical, since right now their policy is, in my view, inimical to everything this country stands for. They’ve tried to suppress black voting, they’ve ran [sic] on the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina. And from top to bottom, the Republicans supported it. So I don’t see what they’re jumping on Trent Lott about.”
Ward Connerly, on the other hand, offered the most interesting defense of all for Mr. Lott. A black man who heads the American Civil Rights Coalition and who has campaigned successfully against racial preferences, he explained to CNN television commentator Wolf Blitzer on December 13 that “supporting segregation need not be racist. One can believe in segregation and believe in equality of the races.” Mr. Blitzer passed over this in embarrassed silence, once again proving that blacks can say things whites cannot.
But now that the hubbub is over, where is the “task force on reconciliation” Mr. Lott promised us on national television? He is still a senator, and could throw one together. Or was the deal that we would get a task force only if he got to keep his job? That makes no sense. If his 45 words were so evil and hurtful he had to resign, doesn’t the country needs more “reconciliation” than if they weren’t so bad and he could stay on? Can’t we make the same argument for the affirmative-action programs Mr. Lott was going to push? Now that he’s lost his job are they suddenly no longer needed? It is hard to find much in Mr. Lott’s behavior that does not stink of dishonesty.
One can fantasize about a completely different but impossible Trent Lott, a Trent Lott with backbone. One can imagine him actually explaining just what problems a Strom Thurmond victory in 1948 might have spared us. A “Dixiecrat” victory would have meant 50 percent of Americans voting for limited government and racial separation, not just 2.4 percent. A difference of this scale would have meant a completely different United States, one that would certainly not have taken the suicidal turns of the 1950s and 1960s. It is hard to imagine much of anything about the country that would not be unrecognizably different if Mr. Thurmond had become president. Mr. Lott made headlines, and was on the cover of Newsweek for mouthing the most degrading racial orthodoxy — and for losing the fight and his dignity anyway. Imagine the sensation if he had stood up for his people rather than crawl for his job! Impossible. There are limits to even the most fertile imagination.
‘Racism’ in High Places
A certain amount of luck seems to go into whether “racism” brings a man down. A number of senators have made comments even more explicit than Mr. Lott’s without being roasted on the front page. In 1994, when he was campaigning for his second term, Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana dropped in on the editor of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, and told him about an exchange he had had with a constituent about life in Washington, DC. “Conrad,” he said the man asked, “how can you live back there with all those niggers?” Mr. Burns says he replied that it was “a hell of a challenge.” Mr. Burns got off with an apology. Five years later, in a speech about US dependence on foreign oil, he referred to Arabs as “rag heads,” but managed to talk his way out of that, too.
In 1993, Sen. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina joked to reporters about why African leaders like to attend trade conferences in Europe: “Rather than eat each other, they’d just come up [to Switzerland] and get a good square meal.” In 2001, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia referred to “white niggers,” meaning that whites could be as degenerate as blacks. In 1999, Sen. Robert Bennet told an editorial board that George W. Bush would win the Republican nomination unless “some black woman comes forward with an illegitimate child that he fathered within the last 18 months.” All these men said they were sorry, and got back to work.
At least one congressman dug himself into a hole even as he clucked about how Trent Lott should resign. According to a story in the Charlotte Observer, Rep. Cass Ballantine of North Carolina explained that “some of his constituents might empathize with Lott’s remarks, and acknowledged that one black colleague [Cynthia McKinney] so provoked him that ‘I must admit I had segregationist feelings.’” He agreed that Mr. Lott was probably a segregationist but added, “In some areas of the South, in Charlotte and everywhere else, there are people who get rubbed the wrong way [thinking] ‘We’ve got to bend over backwards; we’ve got to integrate’ and things like that.” He later said he had been “pretty stupid.”
To be sure. These days it is “pretty stupid” to talk honestly about race. When, despite years of careful instruction, whites unbosom their true racial sentiments in unguarded moments, they quickly learn the rewards of dishonesty and the perils of truth.
|IN THE NEWS|
O Tempora, O Mores!
Will They Ever Learn?
In January 2002, the federal government passed something called the No Child Left Behind law, which sets performance standards for American schools. In 2002, it required that 40 percent of all students meet minimum standards, but it raises the percentages every year, and requires that 100 percent of children meet standards by 2014. As an added exercise in fantasy, it requires that each of five racial subgroups (white, Asian, black, Hispanic, American Indian), as well as children who are poor or who do not speak good English meet the same standards. The laws avowed purpose is to eliminate the achievement gap between different races and social classes.
Children in grades three through eight will take tests, and if, for two years in a row, any sub-par racial or social group fails to improve, the school is classified as “low performing.” This means students must be allowed to go to better schools — even if they are filled to capacity — and the schools must hire private tutors for the students. If a school continues to be “low performing” it is labeled “failing.” It must then fire and replace its principal and teachers or be reopened as a charter school.
In the past, largely-white schools could easily clear standards because white (and Asian) students pulled up the average. Now, even the best schools will have to get their blacks, Hispanics, and non-English-speaking immigrants up to snuff or risk being labeled “low performing.” Just a handful of blacks or immigrants could turn a perfectly good school into a failure. State education officials worry that if the standards aren’t changed, more than half the schools in the country will be “low performing.” In North Carolina, 60 percent of the public schools are likely to miss the mark, and in Louisiana, as many as 85 percent could be “low performing.” [Michael A. Fletcher, States Worry New Law Sets Schools Up to Fail, Washington Post, Jan. 2, 2003, p. A1.]
Nationally, the average black 12th grader can read and do math at the level of the average white 8th grader, and this has been true for decades. If the new law narrows the gap at all, it will do so by bringing down the scores of whites. The Chicago Tribune did a racial analysis of test scores for Chicago-area schools and found that even the well-regarded Hinsdale Central High School, Beye Elementary School in Oak Park and Springman Junior High School in Glenview have at least one racial subgroup that doesn’t measure up. Under the new rules that means the whole school doesn’t measure up.
The performance gaps are about the same everywhere. At Naperville Central High School, for example, 88 percent of white juniors passed state math tests, compared with 36 percent of blacks. At Barrington High School, 85 percent of white students met standards in reading, versus 27 percent of Hispanics.
How are teachers reacting? “This should serve as a distinct wake-up call to all of us,” says Robert Schiller, Illinois state superintendent of education. “We know there are going to be a lot of local school officials disturbed and angry that, despite all the hard work they have put forth, they now find themselves falling short of the federal guidelines.” Should they object to the new, fantasy standards? Apparently not. “[T]he bottom line is we all have to find a way to help close the [racial] gap because it’s the right thing to do for our children,” says Superintendent Schiller.
Many teachers act as if they never heard of racial differences in test scores. “It smacked us in the face,” said Donna Hayley, principal of Pioneer Elementary School in Romeoville, Illinois. “We had a lot of discussion in our building and asked, ‘Are we doing something wrong? Are we treating African-American students differently?’” [Stephanie Banchero and Darnell Little, Scores Reveal Surprise, Chicago Tribune, Nov. 13, 2002.]
The outright madness of this approach could turn out to be very useful. If the poor performance of even a small number of blacks or Hispanics tars an entire school, it will call even more attention to the costs of integration. Also, the fact that the standards — and the problems — will be national will make it much harder to blame the teachers of a particular school. If the blacks at the local elementary are failing because the teachers are “racist,” the teachers at every other elementary school in the country must be “racist.” Some day, a brave or naïve mother may even take a copy of The Bell Curve to school and read from it out loud at a PTA meeting.
White Purge Continues
The purge of the white tribe in Zimbabwe continues with, as usual, no condemnation from the rest of the world. Robert Mugabe’s government has ordered 3,000 white farmers off their land, and is arresting those who will not leave. A police spokesman said 193 whites had been rounded up in the latest sweep, but the figure is suspect because there is little central control of the police or of the anti-white “war veterans” who often raid white farms. The farmers, many of whom are elderly, are held in harsh conditions and usually not allowed visits from wives. Some are still going through the motions of appealing their expulsions, but many have simply walked away from their property, grateful to get out with their lives. Blacks loot many of the farms while their owners are in jail.
On December 14, at the ZANU-PF party’s annual conference, Mr. Mugabe threatened more trouble. Before an audience of some 3,000 ZANU-PF delegates who danced, ululated, and waved clenched fists, he accused Britain, which has made a few timid noises about electoral fraud, of being “an enemy of Zimbabwe.” “The more they express their hostility against us,” he shouted, “the more negative we shall become to their kith and kin here.”
Meanwhile, Mr. Mugabe’s wife Grace has finally picked out the farm she wants. It is called Iron Mask Estate, and sits on 2,500 acres about 20 miles north-west of the capital Harare. The 400 arable acres have lain fallow for the last 18 months, under occupation by “war veterans.” The owners, John and Eva Matthews, ages 78 and 74, moved out of their home of 25 years some time ago. Recently, Mrs. Mugabe dropped by, and is reported to have “politely” told the remaining black farm hands to clear out. Mr. Matthews learned that he could appeal his eviction to an official known as the district administrator — who, as he later learned, was part of Grace Mugabe’s entourage when she came by to chase off his workers.
Mrs. Mugabe is famous for her London shopping trips and profligate ways. Several years ago, she had a great, sprawling house built for herself that soon got the nickname ‘Graceland.’ She has not yet made public her plans for Iron Mask Estate. [Stella Mapenzauswa, Zimbabwe’s Mugabe Tells the World: Leave Us Alone, Reuters, Dec. 13, 2002. Peta Thornycroft, Mugabe’s Wife Selects Her Farm and Orders the Owners to Leave, Telegraph (London), Dec. 26, 2002.]
She seems only to be learning lordly ways from her husband. As his country sinks deeper into misery, Mr. Mugabe has passed new regulations requiring respectful behavior toward his motorcade. Henceforth, no one may “make any gesture or statement within the view or hearing of the State motorcade with the intention of insulting any person travelling with an escort or any member of the escort.” Offenders can go to jail. Zimbabweans actually have it pretty easy. During the late Malawian President Kamuzu Banda’s rule, women were expected to kneel by the roadside, while their menfolk had to applaud when his motorcade passed. [Chris Mhike, Public Faces Arrest For Talking or Pointing at Mugabe’s Motorcade, Daily News (Zimbabwe), Nov. 18, 2002.]
The United States is clucking gently about election fraud and human rights violations. The administration says Mr. Mugabe stole the election from opposition candidate Morgan Tvangirai last March, and that the government is denying food to hungry people. After the election, the US announced it would not let certain Zimbabwean leaders into the country and was freezing their American assets. Just last September, however, Mr. Mugabe addressed the UN General Assembly in New York and got a hero’s welcome from black city councilmen. It is not clear to whom these toothless sanctions apply, but a decision is reportedly in the works about whether to tighten them. So far, the American government appears to have nothing to say about the treatment of white farmers. [George Gedda, U.S. Weighs Sanctions Against Zimbabwe, AP, Jan. 7, 2003.]
In the United States we live with the comfort of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires hospitals to provide emergency treatment to any and all comers, regardless of ability to pay. This has been a gift to illegals who, according to a recent report by the US-Mexico Border Counties Coalition, every year skip out on medical bills worth $79 million in California, $74 million in Texas, $31 million in Arizona and $6 million in New Mexico. The coalition also found illegals stick emergency rescue teams with another $13 million in unpaid bills. These figures are only for illegals. Foreign nationals here legally stiff us too.
It has recently been reported that hospitals south of the border routinely turn away uninsured Mexicans, and tell the ambulance drivers to head for the nearest American hospital. “It’s a phenomenon we noticed some time ago, one that has expanded very rapidly,” says a federal law enforcement officer. He notes that ambulances seem to get across the border quite easily. The federal law that requires hospitals to treat illegals offers no federal compensation to states or counties that must pick up the tab when the feds fail to keep out law-breakers. Perhaps this is why George Bush is unlikely to mention this problem next time he chats with his pal, President Vicente Fox of Mexico. [Jerry Seper, Mexican Medics Take Sick to U.S., Washington Times, Dec. 12, 2002.]
These losses are nothing compared to the estimated $2.5 billion fraudsters have siphoned out of California’s medical handout program, Medi-Cal. Officials estimate that 10 percent of the $25 billion budget ends up in the pockets of criminals, a disproportionate number of whom are immigrants. There appears to be an infinity of ways to bilk the system, and all manner of entrepreneurial scams thrive amidst the spirit of larceny prevalent in southern California. Store fronts — or even just mail drops — claim to dispense expensive medical services and equipment, and bill the state for it. Thieves steal the identities of doctors or medical supply houses and send in claims. Others like to offer small bribes or pairs of sneakers to “patients,” who submit to medical procedures or tests for which dishonest doctors overcharge the system. There is even a name for the people who round up phony patients: “cappers.” Cappers reportedly find an endless supply of customers among the newcomers who are generously making our country more “diverse.” [Tim Reiterman and Virginia Ellis, State Hit Hard by Medical Fraud, LA Times, Dec. 26, 2002.]
OBE for the Lawrences
Every year, the British government announces the New Year’s Honours List, naming people who will be knighted and given other awards. This year, Neville and Doreen Lawrence are among the great and good. They are the parents of Stephen Lawrence, a young black who was stabbed to death in 1993, allegedly by a gang of white “racists.” The investigation into the killing is said to have been incompetent, and although police detained a number of suspects, there were no convictions. The killing and its aftermath were blown up by the press as horrifying examples of British “bigotry,” and led to publication in 1999 of a paper called “The Macpherson Report,” which proposed sweeping, Orwellian changes in British society and police practices. Throughout, Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence have played the part of martyrs in the cause of social justice. Downing Street explained it made the award because “their persistence and courage in the face of tragedy and bitter disillusionment and disappointment have been outstanding.” [George Jones, Honoured for Triumph Over Tragedy, Daily Telegraph (London), Dec. 31, 2002, p. 1.]
The British press almost always refers to the honor by its initials; it can rarely bring itself to remind readers that OBE stand for Order of the British Empire. How much longer before there is a name change?
Ganging Up on the Police
As in the United States, the drug trade in Britain is largely in non-white hands. Turks, Kurds, Chinese, Jamaicans, and Albanians are the main suppliers, and have grown increasingly willing to settle their turf battles by open warfare. Last November, Turks and Kurds fought a pitched battle at a private club on a busy street in north London, using guns, knives, and baseball bats. Of the 40 combatants, one died, four went on life support, and 20 more were so badly wounded they could not even crawl away. Scotland Yard inspectors later found an AK-47 rifle, four handguns, and lots of ammunition. Police have asked witnesses to step forward, but the response from the mostly-immigrant neighborhood has been sullen silence.
Turks and Kurds control about 70 percent of the British heroin trade, but have heretofore settled their disagreements more or less privately. Immigrant gangs have also had informal agreements to let only the highest-ranking chiefs carry guns. The old rules now seem to have gone by the boards, and British police — most of whom do not carry weapons — face increasing danger. [Thomas Wagner, London Braces for Possible Gang War, AP, Nov. 30, 2002.]
Marring the Celebration
2002 was the 40th anniversary of the integration of the University of Mississippi, an event that was marked with appropriately gaudy celebrations. Imagine the chagrin when, in the midst of it all, two black students found racial insults scrawled on the doors of their dorm rooms: “F*****g Nigger” and “F*****g Hoe [sic] Nigger.” Similar messages turned up in three other locations. Black students organized a “Say No to Racism” march and demanded more protection against violence. They blasted the president for not apologizing quickly enough for the graffiti (as if it were his fault). The “Minority Affairs” director demanded “programs and procedures” to instill racial sensitivity and prevent hate crimes. Such things as the “Institute for Racial Reconciliation” and the “Committee On Sensitivity and Respect” held meetings. Activists called for criminal charges. There was national news coverage and much hand-wringing about how little the campus has changed in 40 years.
Now it comes to light that the culprits were three, or possibly four, black freshmen. Ole Miss chancellor Robert Khayat says the culprits’ race “doesn’t excuse their behavior.” Student body president Drew Snyder says he hopes the school’s judicial council will “punish the students to the fullest extent, regardless of race.” All of which means the blacks will probably get off with slaps on the wrist. Mr. Khayat has already made it clear there will be no criminal charges, even though the students caused $600 worth of damage. [Andy Kanengiser, Black Students Allegedly Behind Racist Graffiti, Clarion-Ledger (Jackson, Miss.), Dec. 12, 2002. Michelle Malkin, Another Fake Hate Crime — The Real Race Scandal In Mississippi, Creators Syndicate, Inc., Dec. 17, 2002.]
The Great ‘White’ North
Four white teenagers — a boy and three girls — riding a train in Edmonton, Canada, on New Year’s Eve were swarmed by “aboriginals” who wanted to attack whites. First an Indian woman walked up to the whites and took a swing. Then, says police spokesman Sgt. Patrick Tracy, an estimated 30 companions “just stood up and said ‘we’re going to get the white kids,’” and attacked. They fled when the train stopped at a station. The boy was hospitalized. [Edmonton Native Leader Calls for Task Force on Youth Violence, CBC Calgary web page (calgary.cbc.ca), Jan. 2, 2003.]
Britain, which may be tearing itself apart even more quickly than the United States, has given a respectful hearing to a woman who claims snowmen are symbols of white patriarchy. After studying the cultural meaning of snowmen for five years (!), Tricia Cusack, who is an art historian at the University of Birmingham, has deposited her findings in a lefty magazine called New Formation.
She tells us “the snowman is, of course, white, invariably male and generally adult,” all, no doubt, regrettable characteristics. We learn further that “the snowman’s masculinity and its ritual position in the semi-public space of the garden or field arguably help to substantiate an ideology upholding a gendered spatial-social system marking women’s proper sphere as the domestic-private and men’s as the commercial-public.”
Miss Cusack notes that snowmen smoke fewer pipes than they used to, perhaps reflecting the declining popularity of smoking. Her scholarship has been reported by the BBC and in national newspapers. [Alan Freeman, What’s Male, White and Politically Incorrect? Globe and Mail (London), Dec. 22, 2002.]
Pity the Japanese
Japan is 99 percent Japanese, and the Japanese like it that way. Some public establishments — bath houses, video game arcades, apartment houses — don’t want to deal with non-Japanese at all, and post notices to this effect. Discrimination is forbidden by the Japanese constitution and by UN conventions Japan has signed, but there are no laws that provide penalties for discrimination. This did not keep a district judge in the northern town of Sapporo from ordering a public bath to pay three million yen ($24,000) to three white men to whom it refused entry. The Yunohana bathhouse in the northern port city of Otaru established the Japanese-only rule after drunken Russian sailors got rowdy, stole from locker rooms, and would not follow Japanese bathing etiquette. “Human rights” activists are trying to get the Japanese government to pass laws to punish discrimination. [Jonathan Watts, Japanese-Only Public Baths to Pay Damages, Guardian (London), Nov. 12, 2002.]
The British Labour government has promised to outlaw fox-hunting with hounds, a proposal that has sharply divided the country. On September 6, at a country fair at Frampton-upon-Severn, a columnist for the Telegraph newspaper named Robin Page made a pro-fox-hunting speech in which he argued that if black Londoners can have parades that celebrate their blackness, and homosexuals can celebrate in public, country people should have the right to celebrate their traditions. More than two months later, in mid-November, Mr. Page got a call from the police, who wanted to interview him. He went to the station for a chat, and learned he was being investigated because some people thought his speech was a criminal act that incited racial hatred. When he said he would not speak without his lawyer present, police arrested him and put him in a cell. They told him he would have to spend the night in jail if he wanted his lawyer present, so he decided to talk.
Mr. Page is outraged. “All I said was that the rural minority should have the same rights as blacks, Muslims and gays,” he fumes. Police confirm they arrested Mr. Page, and that they are investigating him as a hate crime suspect. He was ordered to report back to police in January. [Neil Tweedie, Pro-Hunting Writer Held in Cell After Race Claims, Telegraph (London), Nov. 20, 2002.]
Truth Can Hurt
On October 23 last year, an eighth-grade student asked a teacher at Crystal City Elementary School in Jefferson County, Missouri, whether she approved of inter-racial dating, marriage, and child-bearing. She said she did not. The school district immediately suspended her, and is now trying to fire her. Administrators admit that for more than a decade Jendra Loeffelman was a good teacher, but say she violated racial harassment regulations. There were several mulattos in her class, and during termination hearings in January one of them complained, “She basically said I shouldn’t have been born.” Miss Loeffelman’s lawyer is arguing that his client meant only that hybrids face ostracism. [Chris Carroll, Crystal City Teacher’s Remarks on Race Prompt Dismissal Hearing, Post-Dispatch (St. Louis), Jan. 7, 2003.]
The Captain America comics, created during World War II, tell the story of Steve Rogers, a skinny 4F kid rejected by the Army but let into a secret military experiment to create the perfect soldier. After being treated with “Super Soldier Serum” and “vita-rays,” Rogers acquires a perfect body and becomes Captain America, Nazi fighter extraordinaire. Now Marvel Comics is introducing a six-issue series based on the Captain America story — but with a twist. In Truth: Red, White and Black, the man who first undergoes the transformation is black. In a veiled reference to the Tuskegee experiment, the military begins its secret experiment on unsuspecting black soldiers. When it appears success is possible, they abandon all the blacks but one, but also transform Steve Rogers to get two super soldiers.
Truth is written by Puerto Rican Robert Morales, who says racism will be an element of the story, but that he won’t dwell on it. “You will have characters who will explain the racial situation,” he explains, “but Truth is not the kind of thing where somebody will stand on a soap box and complain for six issues.”
Michael King, co-owner of a Philadelphia comic book store, says he’s looking forward to the new story: “It’s sad, but the thing is, there are not a lot of black superheroes, and when parents come in looking for role models, they can be hard to find.” [Howard Shapiro, Brother From Another Comic, Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 21, 2002, p. D1.]
More Immigrants . . .
Of the 50 largest American metropolitan areas, Pittsburgh trails only Cincinnati in having the fewest foreign-born residents: three percent. To Richard Florida, author and professor of regional economic development at Carnegie Mellon University, this is awful. He and other academics say that without immigrants, the area will face huge labor shortages — 125,000 within a decade, and up to 400,000 in 20 years. “This is a big issue for Pittsburgh,” Prof. Florida warns. “Pittsburgh is a patient in need of electrotherapy,” he says; it “wants to stay in the 1950s.” Prof. Florida points to Schenectady, New York, as a model. Schenectady Mayor Albert Jurczynski, a two-term Republican, openly courts Guyanese from New York City, and has already attracted about 3,000. “They’re hard-working people,” he says. “They do not believe in public assistance, unless it’s absolutely necessary. So right away I felt good about them. What mayor wouldn’t?” [Marisol Bello, Failure to Draw Immigrants May Threaten Local Economy, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Dec. 22, 2002, p. A1.]
. . . Or More Babies?
In an address to the Italian parliament last November, Pope John Paul II offered a common-sense solution to the declining population: Make more babies. Italy’s birthrate is one of the lowest in the world — just 9.3 per 1,000 people — and it’s population one of the oldest. Barring a dramatic turnaround in what the Pope calls “the crisis of the birthrate,” Italy is said to need a massive influx of migrant workers to support its elderly pensioners. The situation, says the Pope, is “another grave threat that bears upon the future of this country.” The Italian government should implement policies that “make the task of having children and bringing them up less burdensome both socially and economically.” [Nicole Whitfield, Pope Goes to Parliament, AP, Nov. 15, 2002.]
A politician with a similar idea is Estonian President Arnold Ruutel. In his New Year’s address to the tiny Baltic nation, Mr. Ruutel urged his citizens to have more children. “Let us remember,” he said, “that in just a couple of decades the number of Estonians seeing the New Year will be one-fifth fewer than today.”
Estonia’s birthrate — just 8.7 per 1,000 people — is even lower than Italy’s, and nearly half what it was under Soviet rule. Ironically, the economic boom enjoyed by Estonia since independence in 1991 may be threatening its survival. “Women are postponing having children to look after their education and their careers,” explains Pirat Laur of the World Health Organization’s Estonian office. Since the 1980s, the average age of new mothers has increased from 20 to 28, dramatically reducing lifetime fertility. [In Address to Estonians, President Calls on Citizens to Make More Babies, AP, Jan. 2, 2003.]
Afraid to Play
Last October, a Hispanic student at Long Island’s Roosevelt High School murdered a black student. Nearby Cold Spring Harbor High School then decided to forfeit a football game with Roosevelt, citing safety concerns for players and fans. Because Roosevelt is 98.8 percent black or Hispanic and Cold Spring Harbor is 97.7 percent white, some people said the decision to cancel was “racist.”
Jim Amen, Jr., Cold Spring Harbor’s athletic director, says, “This was not a black-white issue, it was a safety issue,” adding that “parents were calling me left and right” after news reports discussed the violence and gang culture at Roosevelt. He proposed playing the game on Cold Spring Harbor’s field, but Roosevelt declined. Mr. Amen says he turned down Roosevelt’s counter offer of playing at a neutral site, because there would be no way to know who would attend. He also pointed out that immediately following the violence Roosevelt did play two scheduled home games on the visiting teams’ fields.
Roosevelt Superintendent Horace Williams was disappointed by Cold Spring Harbor’s decision to forfeit, but said he didn’t think it was motivated by any racial or class considerations. [Bruce Lambert, High School Forfeits Game at Roosevelt, Citing Fears, New York Times, Nov. 9, 2002, p. B1.]
Robert M. Johnson, the Nassau-Suffolk region’s delegate to the State Board of Regents, disagrees. On Nov. 8, the day before the game was supposed to be played, he demanded that state athletic officials punish Cold Spring Harbor for forfeiting by banning the school from the playoffs next year. Mr. Johnson, who is white, insists race was the problem. “It’s absolutely unconscionable,” he declared. “Unfortunately, that district is so damn lily-white that they don’t have the sensitivity to deal with something like this.” [John Hildebrand, Seeking to Punish Cold Spring Harbor, Newsday.com, Nov. 9, 2002.]
Glamour, the women’s fashion magazine, named 19-year-old Melody Twilley of the University of Alabama as its October “Hero of the Month.” Miss Twilley, who is black, tried unsuccessfully for two years to join one of Alabama’s all-white sororities. She didn’t receive a single offer. “My idea,” she says, “was that if I got in, others would to, and that would diversify the system.”
Miss Twilley, a pre-law major and daughter of Alabama’s largest black landowner, thinks white sororities will eventually change, but for now she plans to organize a sorority that will accept women of all races. “We want huge numbers. I hope it’s the bomb.” [Emily Benedek, Melody Twilley: Taking on Alabama’s All-White Sororities, Glamour, October 2002, p. 68.]
Costly and Futile
In 1967, a nomadic tribe of Canadian aborigines called the Mushuau Innu moved to the remote island of Davis Inlet off the coast of northern Labrador. They claim the provincial government pressured them into moving, a charge the government denies. Davis Inlet quickly became a slum, with no running water or sewers. The people have appallingly high rates of alcoholism, suicide, and sexual abuse. Teenagers sniff gasoline to get high. The local school hasn’t had a graduate in two years. Most Innu live on welfare, and the only jobs on the island are in government offices or small stores. They tell any whites who visit to go away.
In 1993, the Innu decided to leave Davis Inlet and resettle on the mainland, and the Canadian government agreed to cover the costs. It then spent $100 million to build a new town for the 700 Davis Inlet Innu ($142,857 per person) who were scheduled to make the move last December. The town has 133 houses, a clinic, police, and fire stations, and the most expensive school in Canada. The government says there will be jobs for the Innu as maintenance workers, janitors, water-treatment plant operators, teachers’ aides, clinic workers, and sales clerks. Cajetan Rich, who heads the Mushuau Innu Relocation Corporation, says the new residents have been trained to live in modern homes. The government has taught them how to use a thermostat, to first turn the cold water on in the bathtub to avoid being scalded, and what not to flush down a toilet — no diapers, toys, or rocks.
Mr. Rich thinks the Innu are embarking on a new life. Some know better. “The changes will be the running water,” says an Innu schoolgirl. “But the people, they won’t change.” [DeNeen L. Brown, Starting Over, Seattle Times, Dec. 4, 2002.]
|LETTERS FROM READERS|
Sir — I follow your publication with great interest and generally agree with your balance and realism on the important issues of race relations and the need for whites to be proud of their heritage and contributions. However, I do not agree with your generally homophobic perspective, which I feel is irrelevant and even detracts from your overall mission to temper the ideological excesses of so-called “multiculturalism.”
For example, your January review of Paul Gottfried’s Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt has many negative references to homosexuals. It classifies them as “victims” (they do not see themselves that way); calls them “perverts” (“A mix of perverts, misfits, hermaphrodites, aliens and non-whites . . .”); denigrates their “rights” by lumping them together in a negative context with the wholly unrelated demands of immigrants; and refers repeatedly to “perversity,” suggesting homosexuality is unnatural and a mental illness.
Just as whites are not accurately represented by “cracker/redneck” stereotypes, the great majority of homosexuals do not fit unfavorable stereotypes. Most queers are ordinary, hard-working, taxpaying, respectable citizens. Both from a tactical and a strategic standpoint your movement would be well advised be more inclusive towards a group that generally supports your goals. White homosexuals are an affluent, educated, law-abiding group who crave recognition and respectability — just like other beleaguered white folks. By excluding gays from your fold you tend to reduce the credibility of your movement.
Some of your writing has that desperate, fringe-group aura of “it’s us against everybody else.” In my opinion, you should re-examine your agenda about how to further the goal of keeping the white race alive and well. Drop some of your unnecessary prejudices, and be as inclusive as possible. Homophobia will only detract from the wider appeal of your platform. Please give this some serious thought. We don’t want to see American Renaissance end up in the dust bin of social history.
Sam Oglesby, Bronx, New York
Sir — Regarding your article “What Really Happened?” about the relocation of West Coast Japanese during World War II, I was disappointed you did not discuss the treatment of American nationals — such as the civilian workers on Wake Island — who fell into Japanese hands at the outbreak of the war. They were transported to Japan and forced to work in inhuman conditions in mines. Some of the survivors, like American POWs, sought redress after the war but received no compensation.
On a different matter, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, who was the main congressional sponsor of the 1988 legislation that compensated the relocated Japanese, stated recently on 60 Minutes that he was opposed to any type of racial profiling of airline passengers because of his experience as a child in one of the camps. Letting this man’s wounded pride endanger the safety of American travelers is stupid and reckless.
George Bolton, Carlsbad, Calif.
Sir — With respect to the recent flap over Sen. Trent Lott and his statement that our nation would have been better off if segregation candidate Strom Thurmond had won in 1948, it is telling that almost all the attacks have been against Mr. Lott the man, and not the message. Trent Lott wimped out and apologized, but deep in his heart he knows he is right and so do his opponents. The question bears repeating: Would you be better off if Strom Thurmond been elected President in 1948?
J.R., San Francisco, Calif.
Sir — I found the review of the Phillip Jenkins’ book, The Next Christendom (Oct. 2002), both timely and intriguing. I had high hopes it might stimulate some useful controversy, and am disappointed it did not. So far as I can tell it went unnoticed, which only reinforces my long-held opinion that Western man is incapable of comprehending what he is caught up in, let alone dealing with it.
After thousands of years of bloody conflict, it has scarcely dawned on him that the supreme form of warfare is waged against the mind. No man is more thoroughly conquered or occupied than he whose beliefs are formed by repetition and superstition, rather than reason. In this respect, no other institution is as powerful as religion.
Christianity, an Eastern concept grafted on to the West with pagan trappings, has Western civilization in a grip from which it is unlikely to extricate itself. Yet its fulfillment spells the end of the white man as surely as would the triumph of Marxism or internationalism. Christianity calls for a world inhabited by universalist man, who to me is indistinguishable from Marx’s proletariat or internationalism’s citizen of the world. The god of each is committed to the elimination of Western man.
Charles Meyer, New Albany, Ind.