|American Renaissance magazine
|Vol 5, No. 1
The Right of Self Defense
Why white racial consciousness is necessary and moral.
by Jared Taylor
This is the conclusion of a reply to a letter in the previous issue of AR, in which an old friend of the editor explained why he thinks white consciousness is wrong and dangerous.
The fundamental question you raise is this: Is it moral for whites to defend their race and culture? In a country in which every other group makes constant racial demands at the expense of whites the answer to this question should be obvious. And yet, many whites think that even though racial consciousness is fine for every other group, for whites it would be uniquely evil. Since they do not even think in terms of their common interests, they do not see how much they have already lost.
Conquest by Mexico
There are several ways to illustrate this. Let us imagine, for example, that Mexico were to invade and conquer the south-eastern part of the United States. What would the Mexicans do with their new territory? They would establish Spanish as the official language of school and government. They would expel much of the white population and replace it with Mexicans. They would abolish American holidays and replace them with Mexican ones. Music, food, education, work habits, and religion — all would become Mexican rather than American.
Of course, this is exactly what has already happened in many parts of California and Texas. Ballot papers are printed in Spanish, people speak Spanish in school and watch Mexican television, towns celebrate Cinco de Mayo instead of the Fourth of July, and whites have been displaced by Mexicans. A similar invasion from Central America and the Caribbean has, in 30 years, reduced Miami’s former 90 percent white majority to a 10 percent minority.
Those parts of the country are lost to our people and to our culture. What was once America is now ruled by aliens. Astonishing as this may be, we have given up the very thing that nations send their young men into battle to die for. The integrity of a people, race, or culture are among the few things that nations so cherish that they willingly sacrifice even millions of lives to preserve them. Why? Because the preservation of the nation of one’s forefathers is more important than life itself.
There is no prospect more horrible than the extinction of one’s people and culture. One’s own death is an irrelevance by comparison. Every healthy people knows this without a moment’s reflection, and that this knowledge should have slipped from the minds of white people is a sign of the sickness that must be cured.
If it is moral to resist an armed invasion of our nation, surely it is still more moral to resist one that is unarmed but produces the same result. If it is legitimate to kill people in order to prevent conquest, it should be even more legitimate to prevent conquest without shedding blood.
Ideas similar to mine have been expressed by former Senator Eugene McCarthy, of all people. He points out that the essence of colonization is the imposition of alien practices upon a native people. In this sense, Sen. McCarthy calls America a colony of the world. He notes that we have the power to resist alien impositions but that we fail to exercise it. We admire Mahatma Gandhi for resisting alien imposition from Britain, but any white American who resists alien imposition from every nation on earth is called a racist and bigot.
This inversion of morality is cultural and racial capitulation that may be without precedent in the history of the world. Never before has a dominant people simply abandoned territory to newcomers who decide to remake it in their own image. It is as perverse as would be an athletic team that cooperated with its opponents to defeat itself, or a political party that turned over all its elected seats to the opposition.
If the poorest, least educated Americans were pouring across the border into Mexico, going on welfare, demanding instruction in English, and insisting on the ballot for non-citizens, would it be immoral for Mexicans to send them home? Of course not.
Somehow, for us, it is not merely immoral to send Mexicans home; we are to think of their arrival as a “celebration of diversity.” To “celebrate diversity” is nothing more than to cheer the dwindling number of whites, be it in a school, an office, a neighborhood, city or nation — and only whites could have been browbeaten into applauding their own losses. Just how much “diversity” are we supposed to celebrate? Will whites be allowed to remain a majority, or does “diversity” require that we become a minority? May we continue at 49 percent of the population, or are we to keep “celebrating diversity” until immigration and differential birth rates reduce us to nothing?
Ultimately, our society is headed towards the marginalization of whites and their culture. Clearly, this would take several generations, but is that not the direction we have chosen? At “the end of all our exploring,” to use your phrase, I do not want to find Haiti, Nicaragua, the Philippines, or any combination of them. I want to find America. Why is that illegitimate or immoral?
Please note that the doctrine of diversity assumes that it is only whites who suffer from the strangely undefined horrors of homogeneity and who must be blessed with “diversity.” No one is asking Mexico to embark on “cultural enrichment” policies that would reduce the Hispanic population to a minority. People would immediately shout “genocide” at the very idea. Why do the same people view the equivalent “genocide” of white Americans with dispassion or even glee?
Within the United States itself, the same rule applies: Anything that was once all-white must be integrated, but non-whites may stake out an unlimited number of racially exclusive territories. This is most obvious in the case of blacks, who consistently establish black student unions, black newspapers, black political caucuses, black private schools, black neighborhoods where whites are unwelcome. The rule is consistent: “diversity,” dispossession, and dwindling numbers for whites; racial solidarity, ethnic pride, and increasing numbers for everyone else.
By now you may have noticed that the morality of my position is based on nothing more than equal treatment. I want for my people only what I am happy to offer to others. Is not The Golden Rule the standard for morality? It likewise applies to races: Do not do to us what you would not want done to yourselves.
Assuredly, whites have not always lived by that rule, but we have been punished enough for our past sins. What I oppose is the stark asymmetry of a regnant ideology that requires whites alone to sacrifice their racial interests while all others promote theirs at our expense. In opposing this, my heart is “clean and faithful.” Why could yours not be?
The Fatal Asymmetry
There is, however, one aspect of the racial problem that will always be asymmetric. Mexicans do not come to America and blacks do not demand entree into white society because they kindly seek to share with us the benefits of “diversity.” They do not come to give but to take. They come because we have built better societies than they can and they want to profit from the work of our ancestors.
I do not reproach them for this; they want a better life for their children. But it means that “integration” is always a one-way street — non-whites pushing their way in among whites. Whites do not move to El Salvador or Burundi for a better life.
It is this eternal, fateful asymmetry that explains why the false struggles over “multiculturalism,” “xenophobia,” and “racism” are always fought out in white nations and are always used to put whites on the defensive. White nations attract aliens. In their misguided generosity, Europe, America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have now accepted enough non-whites to create parallel societies and racial friction.
There is no “xenophobia” problem in Bolivia or Chad because no foreigners wants to live there. No outside forces threaten the cultural or racial integrity of Harlem or Mexico or Haiti or the South Bronx or Cambodia or Nigeria.
It is because of their ability to build agreeable societies that whites face a problem no other races (except the Japanese and, soon, other North Asians) face: They must exclude others or be swamped. Our crisis is unique, for it is only whites who will be swept away if they do nothing. Only white nations must guard against the relentless, transforming influx of aliens who are not only different from us but who, increasingly, despise us and everything we stand for.
The Question of Blacks
You will argue, as many have, that even if these arguments apply to non-citizens who want to come to America, they do not apply to the descendants of Africans we brought here by force. Their circumstances are certainly different but the threat they pose is essentially the same.
First, it is worth noting that today’s blacks live among us because they want to. Despite the current fashion for Afro-centrism, practically no American black wants to live in Africa. A single visit to the dark continent is usually enough to cure even the fiercest black supremacists of that desire. They may take African names and wear African clothes, but they would rather live in a country with good public health and reliable telephones. Also, despite cliches about white American racism, there are hundreds of thousands of visa applications on file with our consulates in Africa. Africans want to come here as badly as anyone else.
It is African Americans who, in fact, demonstrate best the irreducible nature of race. Blacks have lived among us for centuries. They have been culturally formed on this continent. Yet, as a group, they are a greater threat to Anglo-European civility than even the non-whites who arrive as genuine aliens.
Blacks, more than anyone, profit from the wealth and orderliness of a society they cannot build or even maintain, while they cry “racism” because they do not have as much as whites. They insist on full participation in our communities and institutions, yet many take it for granted that they may exclude us from theirs.
Nothing remains the same after blacks have put their mark on it. Once the number of blacks reaches a certain level, schools, cities, neighborhoods, and even nations quickly lose the qualities that whites find necessary for civilized life. For all the reasons that AR has discussed, this cannot be blamed on slavery or Jim Crow. Blacks simply do not build communities in which whites can decently live. And once we have let them into our own communities, many of them openly vent their contempt for us by despising our heroes, breaking our laws, robbing, raping and killing us.
Everyone knows this, of course, even if few admit it. The question for me is what to do about it and the question for you is whether it is moral to do anything about it. In fact, you already have done something about it — the very thing most whites do. You have disengaged yourself and your family from blacks (and other non-whites) as much as possible. I think we can be sure that if Cape Cod had a majority black or Hispanic population you would not live there.
It is still possible to disengage oneself from non-whites because whites are still a majority. The tide of color rises slowly — block by block and neighborhood by neighborhood — but eventually, the demographers tell us, it will swamp us all. In this sense non-white Americans are no different from immigrants. They push their way into the midst of whites, who quite naturally withdraw. The territory they occupy then changes fundamentally and is no longer subject to the cultural and civic traditions dear to us. If parts of Texas and California are, for all practical purposes, occupied by Mexico, many of our cities have been occupied by Liberia. Camden, New Jersey, is just as lost to Western civilization as central Miami. Unless whites, as a race, can disengage from non-whites, they are doomed as a people and as a culture.
Something that complicates this issue is the fact that there will always be some non-whites who embrace our civilization and make important contributions to it. Yo-yo Mah plays the white man’s music as if his ancestors wrote it. Thomas Sowell writes beautifully in the tradition of European scholarship. Moreover, if the number of non-whites is small, even unremarkable people adopt the majority culture; they have no choice. But once the concentration of non-whites reaches a critical mass, racial-cultural loyalty becomes fatally divisive. We see the evidence for this everywhere. Our country is well into the stage of fatal divisiveness, and the racial fault lines grow deeper every day.
The problem, then, is this. If we do nothing, all of America will in time become Detroit and South-Central Los Angeles. There will be nothing left of the Anglo-European culture you and I both love. Nothing. The hopes and sacrifices of our ancestors will have been wasted, the civilization they built wrecked. Our survival is at stake, and I see nothing that will save us unless we are free to disengage.
Once again, this is our unique dilemma. Non-whites pursue us wherever we go because they covet what we build. But once they arrive in sufficient numbers, they destroy what they came to find.
All I ask is that whites be left alone to let their culture and civilization unfold unmolested. Is this too much? Is it immoral?
The Threat of Blood Bath
You seem to assume that the faintest white racial consciousness and the mildest posture of self defense will lead to blood bath. By wanting to be left alone in the preference of my own people do I proclaim myself a potential mass murderer? By noting that Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln thought that a multi-racial society could not succeed, do I become a successor not to them but to Adolf Hitler? Were the debate about anything else, I think you would see how fantastic a mental leap you are making.
Consider President Clinton. He wants America to have socialized medicine. He wants a system in which medical treatment is paid for and consumed “from each according to his ability to each according to his need.” But was that not the theory that led to Stalin’s massacres, the Gulag, the enslavement of Eastern Europe, and slaughter in Cambodia? Perhaps you had better warn the President.
I might note that ever since the French Revolution, far more people have been killed in the name of equality and the brotherhood of man than in the name of separation. Why is your fear so selective?
There is no doubt that by defending ourselves we will deny others something they want. This cannot be avoided. If someone wants your wallet, by defending yourself you deny him its contents. Some non-whites who want to live among us and profit from our achievements will not be able to do so. That will be unpleasant for them, but they will be denied only the benefits of a civilization they did not build.
It is good and generous for you to worry that non-whites might suffer if whites regain a sense of their own racial interests. But do our sufferings count for nothing? Do the deaths and losses of whites at the hands of black and Hispanic criminals count for nothing? Do the collapse of our public schools and the vilification of our traditions count for nothing? Do the hardships of whites driven from their neighborhoods count for nothing? Does the transformation of our great cities into hives of degeneracy count for nothing? Does the long-term threat of cultural extinction count for nothing?
Sometimes it seems as though a majority of whites would prefer to disappear quietly rather than do anything that any other group would find unpleasant. Some people are extreme pacifists who would rather let themselves be killed than commit violence to save themselves, but they are invariably thought odd. Why is it that so many people who are not personal pacifists are nevertheless racial pacifists? They would not hesitate to defend their families but they refuse to defend their race and culture when threatened in a similar way.
Of course, self defense is not a license for violence, and it is not possible to guarantee that self defense will never go too far. However, our choice is between dispossession and some act to forestall dispossession. The normal, healthy,moral course is to act.
You claim to detect animus in the pages of AR and consider this reason enough to discredit racialism. Part of what you detect is, I believe, your own prejudices. Today, any expression by whites of racial consciousness is called “hate” just as the Soviets used to treat any interest in free markets as mental illness.
I have a first loyalty to my people, to my race and culture. It is not because they are the best — however much I may like them — but because they are mine. As the French proverb puts it: “All nations think themselves better than their neighbors; and all nations are right.” Somehow, in the last several decades, the rules changed, but only for white people. If a black man says “I love black people,” or if a Hispanic says “I love Latinos,” they are taken at their word and no one disapproves. If a white man says “I love white people,” he is treated as if he had said “I hate spics and niggers.”
I think that much of the animus you claim to detect is nothing more than the application of this double standard, but let us assume that there is more to it than that. If animus is to be found in AR it is certainly not the driving force of racialism; it is, instead, a natural response to a real threat to white, Western society. AR is not an intellectual pose designed to conceal the subjective sin of racial animus. Instead, both animus and white racial consciousness are natural responses to the objective threat of dispossession. Those who most naturally provoke animus are the people of our own group without whose help and encouragement non-whites could not threaten us.
You write as if we still lived in an overwhelmingly Anglo-European society with a smattering of helpless non-whites who deserve justice and tolerance. To feel animus toward a powerless out-group that poses no threat would be blameworthy; not to feel animus or at least dread for groups that threaten the very character of our nation — and for the whites who cheer them on — is wholly unnatural. As liberals always do, you see any healthy attempt to preserve the European character of our country as evidence of a moral flaw.
I will draw a parallel that may explain how it feels always to have one’s motives impugned and one’s arguments ignored. You love your sons more than you care for the children of strangers — not necessarily because they are better than all other children but because they are yours. That is natural and healthy. I think you would agree that loving your sons does not in any way imply that you hate other people’s children or wish them harm. Let us now imagine a society built on the assumption that all adults should care equally for all children. People have actually tried out this idea and, of course, it has failed.
In such a society, your natural emotions would be called bigotry. Any expression of love for your children would be called “hatred” for the children of others. Any attempt to explain that loving your own children implied no hatred for others would be called “cogent, calm arguments that chill the soul,” which is how you characterize racialist reasoning. How would you feel as the target of such accusations?
In fact, the real situation is far worse. All other parents take it for granted that they should love their children but they don’t give a fig for yours. It is only you, who must sacrifice for the children of others. To put it in racial terms, is this not what affirmative action and “diversity” require of whites? To love the children of non-whites more than they love their own? To accept race-based penalties so that other races can reap race-based rewards? To cheer their own dispossession and to rejoice as their numbers dwindle? And to be dismissed as degenerates if they refuse to embrace this travesty?
The defense of one’s people is not, as you call it, “the easy way out.” Your way — to do nothing — is the easy way. There will still be classical music and productions of Shakespeare and Independence Day parades for as long as you and I are around to enjoy them. Our country will slowly get grimmer and darker, more blighted and more violent, but even if we do nothing, there will always be enclaves of Anglo-European civility to which we can escape.
It is your grandchildren who will inherit a nation in which they are a despised minority, one in which they will be unable to avoid the barbarism, incompetence, and corruption of the third world peoples who may have displaced us. Your grandchildren may live on a spit of land called Cape Cod, but it will not be the Cape Cod you live on. Through your inaction it will have become what Detroit and South-Central Los Angeles are today.
My contemporaries may curse me for what I do; your grandchildren will curse you for what you did not do.
Mexico Moves North
Mexican immigrants meet American politics.
Mexican Americans: The Ambivalent Minority, Peter Skerry, The Free Press, 1993, 463 pp., $27.95
reviewed by Thomas Jackson
Like so many contemporary books on racial or ethnic questions, Mexican Americans can be profitably read for information, but its analysis is blinkered. Peter Skerry, who teaches political science at UCLA, occasionally stumbles across a useful insight about immigration or racial politics but, as we shall see, the larger issues have completely eluded him.
Despite the book’s title, it is more an account of Mexican-American politics than a general study about Mexican immigrants. Most American Hispanics are Mexicans, so apart from Puerto Ricans in New York and Cubans in Miami, it is probably a good general portrait of Hispanic politics.
Prof. Skerry reports that, like all Latin Americans, Mexicans are mainly interested in private concerns and have a deep cynicism about public life. He suggests that Mexican-American politicians tend to be open to corruption and that they have little sense of service. They also have distinctive relations with voters, though these vary greatly from region to region.
San Antonio, Texas, for example, has an old and stable population of Mexicans, and politicians represent real constituencies. In Los Angeles, however, politicians are an unrepresentative elite who keep voters at a distance. This is mainly because it takes a lot of money to run for office in California, and Mexicans do not like to contribute to campaigns. As Prof. Skerry explains, financial backers have, from the beginning, been a heavily Jewish group of white liberals.
This means that politicians do not rise from the community but are, to use Prof. Skerry’s words, “parachuted” into Hispanic areas and “have a carpetbagging mentality.” The beneficiaries of these “sponsored candidacies” do not live in the Mexican ghettos of East L.A. but in nearby areas that are whiter and pleasanter.
Some politicians actually discourage voter participation and volunteer work because it is easier to deal with rich donors than to be beholden to constituents. Pleasing backers may mean betraying voters. Mexicans are more likely to oppose abortion than nearly any other group in America but since white liberals support it, Mexican politicians do too. As a consequence, they avoid Catholic churches, which might otherwise be natural campaigning sites. Politicians also get support from liberal feminists, whom ordinary Mexicans find incomprehensible. Prof. Skerry quotes one bewildered Mexican who has worked with them: “We don’t hate our men.”
Since the money comes from liberals, Mexican politicians are overwhelmingly Democrats. A few drift into the Republican party, but not out of commitment. Republicans are wooing non-whites as frantically as Democrats and as one fair-weather Republican explains to Prof. Skerry, “The line is shorter over there.”
Until the 1960s, it was common for Mexican-American spokesmen to oppose large-scale immigration from Mexico, but affirmative action and current interpretations of the Voting Rights Act have completely changed that. The law now requires Hispanic-majority districts, and safe seats are catnip to politicians.
Now, according to a poll of Mexican “leaders,” half are in favor of completely opening the border and the rest want minimal restrictions on immigration. Since redistricting is based on population rather than on a count of citizens, Prof. Skerry points out that a heavily Hispanic district can be a “rotten burrough,” with relatively few voters to bother about. Millions of illegals, even though they cannot vote, mean more political sinecures for “carpetbaggers.”
Affirmative action and the ease with which whites can be manipulated also make immigration appealing. A rising Mexican population means ever-larger job quotas, and because the newcomers live in miserable conditions, politicians can rail self-righteously about substandard housing, crime, overcrowded schools, and the “racist oppression” that they claim causes it all.
Although Prof. Skerry doesn’t seem to understand why, other Mexicans are much less sanguine about increased immigration. Unlike “sponsored candidates,” who live among whites, ordinary Mexicans feel the pinch when pre-literates swarm into their neighborhoods. In East L.A., people build illegal shanties in their back yards, turn their garages into rooming houses, and park cars on their front lawns. They set their laundry out to dry on bushes, and play bingo with animal pictures because they cannot read numbers. They turn California into Mexico, and Mexico is precisely what ordinary immigrants thought they were leaving behind.
Although Mexican “leaders” like to suppress this information, a great many immigrants would be glad to seal the border. The closer an immigrant lives to Mexico and the larger the number of recent immigrants in his neighborhood, the more he favors immigration control, and is against amnesty and social services for illegals. It is educated Mexicans, who live far from the effects of what they advocate, who yell about open borders.
Race and dispossession
Prof. Skerry seems genuinely puzzled by race. Nearly half of all Mexican-Americans tell census takers they are white, so that is what he thinks they are — though a glance at the dust jacket photos of his own book would show him that most Mexicans are no more like Europeans than Chinese are. Prof. Skerry is so convinced that Hispanics are white that he constantly writes about “Anglos,” and when he reports the results of polls that refer to whites, he puts the word in quotation marks!
He has noticed that the media switch back and forth between calling Mexicans Hispanic and white, but he has not figured out why. He seems to understand that if the victim of a police beating is a Mexican he will be called Hispanic, but he is bewildered that Theodore Briseo, one of the four officers who beat Rodney King, was constantly referred to as white.
Prof. Skerry reports regretfully that Mexican-Americans do not like blacks. They are outspokenly opposed to busing because they do not want their children to mix with blacks. When the populations do mix, racial gang fights are routine. The most hard-boiled, anti-white Chicano activists have long preached a “black-brown coalition” against the white man, but ordinary Mexicans want nothing to do with blacks.
Prof. Skerry takes it for granted that blacks deserve racial preferences and notes that both the media and American institutions encourage Mexicans to make the same demands. It has occurred to him, though, that two-thirds of all Mexican-Americans have come here within the last 20 years — all voluntarily and many illegally. After considerable throat clearing, he unbosoms the daring view that it may be disingenuous for Mexicans to set themselves up as a persecuted minority.
Prof. Skerry reports that virtually all Mexicans assume they have a right to live in the Southwest because it was once part of Mexico and they are a “conquered people.” He usefully points out that at the end of the Mexican-American War, only four percent of the population of the Southwest was Mexican, and that these 80,000 or so people were only one percent of the population of Mexico. Still, even though he writes of California schools “inundated with hundreds of thousands of immigrants,” he never suggests that Mexicans should stay home.
Prof. Skerry notes that all Mexican-American politicians expect the demographic tide to keep rising and to sweep them on to ever-greater power, but he fails to understand their confidence. He quotes a participant of the struggle for control of a Texas school board as saying that it was about “the definition of the community,” but does not seem to care who wins. He writes of the “understandable anxieties of millions of Americans that our nation is undergoing a momentous transformation without much honest or realistic debate about the possible consequences,” but he dismisses these anxieties as “beside the point,” because many Hispanics are learning English. He then notes that 78 percent of Hispanic officials agree with the statement, “Since Hispanics are becoming a very large part of the American population, bilingual programs are equally important for Anglo children,” and concedes that this is “provocative.”
In one of the stupidest passages in the whole book, he clucks over the fact that more Hispanics than blacks were arrested during the Los Angeles riots, but adds “it is still not clear what conclusions can be drawn.” One of the most obvious is that if they had not been here they would not have rioted.
All of this can be explained as the usual liberal blindness to the obvious, but not everything Prof. Skerry says can be so easily excused. Several times, he passes along the view that Mexicans have strong “family values” and are disdainful of government assistance. Nowhere does he tell the reader that Hispanic children are twice as likely as whites to be illegitimate and considerably less likely (67 percent v. 79 percent) to be living with two parents. Nor does he mention that Hispanics are up to 100 times more likely than whites to have venereal diseases and three times more likely be on welfare.
A child’s family life is said to have a strong influence on whether he enters a gang. Los Angeles has an estimated 415 gangs with approximately 60,000 members, of which fully 57 percent are Hispanic (and 36 percent are black). Family values, indeed. Prof. Skerry can hardly not know some of these facts, and his silence borders on deception.
As for sins of commission, the most preposterous statement in the whole book may be what follows Prof. Skerry’s assurance that the question is not whether Hispanics will assimilate into American society, but how. “We must recognize that defining themselves as a [racial] minority group may be the way this new wave of immigrants assimilates into the new American political system,” he writes. Of course, it is as a racial minority group that Hispanics demonstrate that they have not assimilated. Prof. Skerry’s definition of assimilation is testimony both to his powers of fantasy and to the extent to which American political discourse has lost its bearings.
|IN THE NEWS
O Tempora, O Mores!
Whites Fight Back
The city of Beaumont, Texas has been ordered to pay a white man $376,000 in damages because of racial discrimination. David Shows was rejected for a job as a policeman despite getting a higher employment test score than a woman and a Hispanic who were hired. A judge ordered the city to pay Mr. Shows $76,000 in back pay and a jury awarded him $300,000 for “mental anguish.” The same judge has determined that the city’s discriminatory affirmative action program was unconstitutional and has forced its cancellation. “They forced me to fight,” said Mr. Shows, “and I fought.” [Richard Stewart, Vidor officer wins discrimination suit, Houston Chronicle, 11/13/93.]
In another suit, a judge has found that a Louisiana farmer was illegally kept out of a Farmer’s Home Administration (FmHA) program because he was white. Larry Moore applied to buy 190 acres of land repossessed by FmHA, but received a letter explaining that the sale was not open to whites. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has called this “overt racial discrimination.” Mr. Moore has since filed a claim for $21 million in damages. [Ron Ridenhour, Reverse-discrimination suit: new boundaries?, SF Examiner, 11/21/93, p. B10.]
Likewise, a federal district court has found that the minority construction set-aside program run by the city of San Diego, California was an unconstitutional quota system. The suit was filed by a predominantly white group, the Associated General Contractors. The plaintiffs showed that the system prevented white contractors from getting contracts, even when they offered the lowest bid. [Michael Granberry, San Diego ordered to end minority builders’ program, LA Times, 9/30/93.]
Until last fall the Girl Scout pledge started with the following words: “On my honor, I will try to serve God and my country . . .” At the latest Girl Scout national convention, held in Minneapolis in October, delegates voted 1,560 to 375 to let the girls substitute whatever they like for “God.” They can now pledge to serve Allah or Buddha or Gaia or the great plumed serpent. Boy Scouts continue to serve God, for the time being. [Girl scouts allow for religious diversity in pledge, NYT, 10/25/93, p. A11.]
Brits Show Spunk
Golliwogs are black-face dolls that have been popular with British children since they 19th century. Lately, they have come under attack because they are “racist.” The lefty-dominated city council in Greenwitch recently sent a black woman to inspect the business of Deena Newton, who runs a small day care business in her home. The inspector found that Mrs. Newton owns a golliwog, and the council promptly lifted her childminding license. The resulting outrage forced the council to reinstate Mrs. Newton, and toy manufacturers reported that golliwogs rose to the top of British children’s Christmas wish lists. [Gollies top the toy lists, no paper, no date, British, Dec. 1993.]
Name Change Backfires
As the student populations go from white to non-white, so do the names of schools. Many a Robert E. Lee high school or George Washington grammar school has been changed to Thurgood Marshall or Malcolm X. In San Antonio, Jefferson Davis Middle School once had an all-white student body but is now virtually all black. Last year, school officials decided that it was wrong to commemorate the president of the Confederacy, so they changed the name to S.J. Davis, after the first black to serve on the board of trustees.
People later began to wonder what the S.J. stands for, and since Mr. Davis is dead, they asked his widow. She told them that Mr. Davis’ father had been an ardent Southern patriot, and had named his son Stonewall Jackson Davis.
Four California elementary school children have actually gone on trial for a hate crime that turned out to be a hoax. Jake Thompson, a black student of Encinal Elementary School, claimed that ten white and Hispanic schoolmates had beaten him up, torn his shirt, and held his head in the toilet. He also claimed that they had said “Stupid black boy” while they did it, so this became a sensational act of bigotry.
The defendants, in what was classified as a felony hate crime, were all 10 to 12 years old. The prosecutors were so eager to try the case that when they learned that one of the accused had not been in school on the day of the attack they simply decided it had happened on another day. During the week-long trial, it became clear that young Jake had torn his own shirt, wet his head, and lied about the attack, probably in order to get out of afternoon classes. [Sandra Gonzalez, Four boys to go on trial in school hate-crime case, SJ Merc News, 10/25/93, p. 1B David Sylvester, 4 Schoolboys in San Jose acquitted of hate crime charges, SF Chronicle, 10/30/93, p. A17.]
This case says a lot about America. By the time they are 12 years old, blacks know that the accusation of racism is so powerful that it can send otherwise sane people into a frenzy; and whites have been so terrorized that they will drag ten-year olds into court to show their zeal for combating “racism.”
Eye on the Times
The New York Post, the one New York newspaper that occasionally writes sensibly about race, has started a column called “Times Watch.” Written by Hilton Kramer, a former art critic for the New York Times, it is a weekly roasting of the liberal myopia of the country’s “newspaper of record.” Mr. Kramer has been particularly good about the Times’ reporting on race, which he scoffs at as “affirmative action journalism.” [Hilton Kramer, The mayor’s invisible record, NY Post, 11/9/93, p. 17.]
Ear on the Airwaves
Clayton Riley is the boss of New York’s WLIB, one of the most virulently anti-white radio stations in America. Recently he had this to say about John Taylor, a writer for New York magazine who had said unkind things about black radio programming:
We talk about what Colin Powell said: ‘You find the enemy, you isolate it, you kill it.’ . . . We want to put John Taylor on that list. Remember telling you the story about Miles Davis? Broadcaster asked him, ‘Miles, what would you do if you found out you had an hour left to live?’ Miles said ‘I’d like to spend it strangling a white boy.’ We’re going to add John Taylor to the list of white boys Miles Davis would like to have strangled.
[Minoo Southgate, Why do we tolerate violence?, NY Post, 9/22/93, p. 15.]
Rev. Jackson Changes Tune
Recently, Jesse Jackson has started suggesting that perhaps not all the troubles of the black race can be blamed on whites: “We lose more lives annually to the crime of blacks killing blacks than the sum total of lynchings in the entire history of the country. We are far more threatened by the dope than the rope.” [Words of the week, Jet, 11/15/93.]
Mr. Jackson recently took this message to Roosevelt High School in New York, where black students regularly murder each other, but the students were unimpressed. To Mr. Jackson’s plea that students not bring weapons to school, one senior replied, “I’m sorry, sir. This is 1993, not 1963. I don’t know where you’ve been.”
“You need some kind of protection,” he added, “because nobody else is going to stop a bullet for you.”
Another senior was also skeptical. “He’s a great leader so I’ll listen to him. But it’s easy for him to talk about giving up guns and drugs. He don’t have to live with the same problems we do. Some people bring guns to school because their lives are in danger. He has body guards, we don’t. He has money, we don’t.” [Don Terry, A Graver Jackson’s Cry: Overcome the violence!, NYT, 11/13/93, p. A1.]
Security Where It’s Needed
The usual cry of racism went up when it was discovered that some Drugs for Less stores in Atlanta had put anti-theft devices on products popular with blacks but not on those favored by whites. A spokesman for the stores was unruffled. The only criterion for putting on the devices, he explained, is whether they are likely to be shoplifted. [AP, Security tags on items aimed at blacks, 11/30/93.]
St. Augustine’s College in Raleigh, North Carolina has instituted a new admissions requirement: Freshmen must produce their police records. Students have started killing and robbing each other, and the college wanted to keep out trouble-makers. The usual crew claims that this is humiliating and discriminatory, especially for blacks, but this complaint has an odd ring to it. The administration and nearly all students are black. [AP, Students Divided over college check of police records, no paper or date.]
More and more pregnant women go to the hospital, have their babies, and then clear out, leaving the newborns behind. A federal study has found that 22,000 babies were abandoned in 1991, most of them black. Taking care of these waifs costs as much as $125 million a year. [Babies with nowhere to go, US News and World Report, 11/22/93.]
Raven’s Progressive Sonatas
A recent study at the University of California at Irvine has found that listening to classical music can raise your IQ — at least for a few minutes. College students were given a standard IQ test after listening either to Mozart or a relaxation tape, or meditating for 10 minutes. Every student’s score was higher after listening to Mozart’s Sonata for Two Pianos in D. However, the effect wore off after about 15 minutes.
The researchers suspect that the complexity of classical music stimulates the brain while the simple, repetitive rhythms of rock music hamper brain activity. They believe that playing classical music rather than just listening to it may permanently increase IQ. [Robert Lee Hotz, UCI study ties rise in IQ to classical music, LA Times, 10/14/93, p. A1.]
On the Rocky Road to Assimilation
Two doctors have recently been fined $10,000 each for an incident that took place in October, 1991. Kwok Wei Chan, surgeon, and Mohan Korgaonkar, anesthesiologist, were about to operate on an elderly woman at the Medical Center of Central Massachusetts when they began to argue. Dr. Chan swore at Dr. Korgaonkar. Dr. Korgaonkar threw a cotton-tipped prep stick at Dr. Chan. The two came to blows. They duked it out on the floor of the operating room, while a wide-eyed nurse monitored the unconscious patient. After a while, the doctors picked themselves up and completed the operation.
In addition to the fines the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine ordered the two to undergo joint psychotherapy. [AP, Doctors fined for scuffling in operating room, SJ Merc News, 11/28/93, p. 7A.]
The University of Alabama at Birmingham has dropped Blaze, the mascot for its athletic teams, which are called the Blazers. Blaze, who was a big, rough-and-tumble Norseman, drew fire for being too mean, too masculine, and too white. Grant Shingleton, sports information director for the university, explained that poor Blaze was, “I hate to use the word — too Aryan.” [AP, UAB to dump controversial mascot, no paper name or date.]
Amy Biehl was the American woman, working for “liberation” in South Africa, who was murdered by blacks because of her race (see AR, Nov. 1993). Seven blacks were charged in the killing, but the prosecution has not gone smoothly. One defendant, who was not immediately jailed because he was only 15, has disappeared. Three others have been set free because the main witness against them fears he will be killed if he testifies. When the three were freed, they were carried away from the court house on the shoulders of exultant supporters. At a recent hearing involving the three remaining defendants, black visitors to the court taunted whites and giggled when Miss Biehl’s wounds were described. [AP, South Africa Freed 3 in American’s Death, SF Chron, 11/23/93, p. A12.]
Heart of Darkness
In the African country of Burundi, the minority Tutsi (Watusi) tribe has traditionally lorded over the majority Hutu. In pre-colonial times the Tutsi kept the Hutu as slaves, but whites put an end to that. Since independence, the Tutsi and the Hutu have periodically had a serious go at each other. In 1972, an estimated 150,000 Hutu were massacred by Tutsi with the help of the Tutsi-dominated armed forces. In 1988, the army went on another anti-Hutu rampage, killing at least 5,000 and perhaps as many as 50,000.
Now the tribes are at it again. A Hutu, Melchior Ndadaye, was chosen as president in the country’s first-ever election, but Tutsi, who are used to running things, killed him in October. This has set off another massacre that has continued at least into December. This time, Hutu are attacking Tutsi villages with machetes and dismembering everyone they can find. The Foreign Minister thinks the death toll might surpass 1972’s 150,000. [Killings on Rise in Burundi, Official Says, SF Chron, 11/27/93, p. C4.]
Say It Often Enough and Someone May Believe It
In a recent editorial, the Houston Chronicle explained why the city should celebrate the 16th of September, Mexican independence day: “Texans share countless bonds of blood and heritage with Mexicans. The threads of Mexico’s culture run deeply through our state’s fabric. It is not overstating the case to observe that our destinies are intertwined . . .”
“As a people, we Americans need not feel threatened when one group among us celebrates its heritage. On the contrary, our diversity is our strength as a nation. It is cause for celebration.” [Mexico’s Freedom Day, Houston Chronicle, 9/16/93.]
Representatives of most of the world’s remaining colonies met in London recently to discuss how to maintain their status. “No country that moved to independence in the last 30 years has any success stories,” said Thomas Jefferson, an official from the Cayman Islands. “We see no benefit in moving on.”
Millions upon millions of people would be better off if they had not shucked European rule. South Africa has enjoyed more years of growth and prosperity under European rule than any other part of Africa. There will be no benefit in majority rule.
Sauce for the Goose
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) makes it its business to see that protected minorities are hired in proportion to their share of the population. Recently it brought suit against the owner of a dry cleaning business that does only $400,000 of business a year. The company was started by a Korean immigrant, and 81 percent of all the people it had ever hired were Korean. Since less than one percent of the Chicago work force is Korean this sounded like shameless discrimination.
As it happened, new workers learned about jobs solely through word of mouth, and this meant that a virtually all Korean work force perpetuated itself. A seventh circuit court judge ruled that passive recruitment of this kind was not discrimination. We can be sure that this would not have been an acceptable defense for a white-owned company. The judge’s ruling contained the following implied preferences for foreigners and blacks:
Recent immigrants are frequent targets for discrimination, some of it violent. It would be a bitter irony if the federal agency dedicated to enforcing the anti-discrimination laws succeeded in using these laws to kick these people off the ladder by compelling them to institute costly systems of hiring. There is equal danger to small black run businesses in our central cities. Must such businesses undertake in the name of non-discrimination costly measures to recruit non-black employees? [EEOC v. Consolidated Service Systems, 989 F.2d 233 (7th Cir. 1993) — quoted in Texas Employment Law Letter, p. 4 no date.]
White-owned companies are routinely forced to undertake costly recruitment measures to find non-white employees.
A National AR Conference? You Can Make It Happen.
A generous supporter has offered initial funding for a public conference to discuss the issues raised in AR: race, immigration, and the defense of European-American civilization. We think this is a marvelous idea and we have already contacted a number of first-rate speakers who would be pleased to address a conference.
However, before we start making plans, we need some indication of how many readers might attend. We would expect to meet on a weekend some time this summer, probably in Atlanta, Georgia. Costs to you would be travel, accommodations (we would get a group rate at the conference site), and a registration fee.
There is nothing like a conference for making new friends, broadening horizons, and planning strategy. Please write and tell us if you might want to attend. Also, please indicate whether you would prefer an ordinary weekend or the Sunday and Monday of a three-day weekend like Independence Day or Labor Day. We can’t do this without you!
|LETTERS FROM READERS
Sir — Your December issue was excellent. I enjoyed Mr. Taylor’s reply to Mr. Meldahl and look forward to its conclusion. However, I particularly wish to congratulate Mr. Meldahl. First, to have held fast to liberalism in the face of three years of AR shows a remarkable tenacity of spirit. Second, it is most unusual for liberals to argue seriously against the racialist view. Mostly, they just scream, because they are incapable of imagining a point of view so different from their own. To his great credit, Mr. Meldahl’s arguments are well considered and well expressed.
I doubt that any of your subscribers has written in, saying, “Mr. Meldahl is right! Cancel my subscription.” However, his are the objections that thoughtful, well-meaning white people will raise against the AR position. Even if we cannot answer his objections to his satisfaction, we must answer them to our own satisfaction.
Paul Sokel, Warren, Mich.
Sir — I hesitate to write in response to Mr. Meldahl’s letter before I have seen the conclusion of Mr. Taylor’s reply. However, I must make one point about Mr. Meldahl’s fear that racialism could lead to blood bath. It may well be a legitimate fear. It is often a legitimate fear, but one that should not lead to paralysis.
Surely, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence knew that their actions might lead to blood bath. So must have Abraham Lincoln when he refused to recognize the Confederacy. John Kennedy’s forceful handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis might have led to blood bath. Our reaction to the bombing of Pearl Harbor resulted in millions of deaths that capitulation would have avoided.
My point is this: Good and wise men must sometimes accept the risk of blood bath, much as they might wish to avoid it. Any man or nation that refuses ever to resort to violence will be destroyed.
Allen Short, New Albany, Ind.
Sir — It speaks well for you, me, and my well-educated and successful son that I have the pleasure of selecting American Renaissance as his birthday gift for 1993.
Your response to your friend Malcolm Meldahl is in keeping with the finest traditions of AR . . . irrefutable! My congratulations to you for your fidelity to the truth.
John W. Edwards, Mendenhall, Miss.
Sir — I very much enjoyed “Dissenting Voices II” in the December issue. To some extent the interview with “Miss Charming” confirms my own view that many American blacks understand that the races differ in average intelligence and that the United States is much better off with a white majority. However, at the end, the author writes, “Among most blacks, of course, her views are anathema” — this despite her having quoted “Miss Channing” as saying that she knows many blacks who feel as she does and that their number is growing. Why does everyone assume that the blacks they know are the rare exceptions? Why not ask more and see how they feel?
My suspicion is that a great many blacks secretly feel as Miss Channing does. They never give voice to these feelings because of the almost universal assumption — especially among whites — that such feelings are almost inconceivable. You can hardly expect ordinary blacks to stand on rooftops shouting such views.
There is something else that stands out in Miss Channings remarks. She says, “Negroes have been a huge problem in this country. Maybe by speaking out we can be part of the solution.” I think this is an extremely important observation. If I am correct in my estimation of blacks, both in South Africa and the United States, there is a huge reservoir of black sentiment against blacks and in favor of whites. What is required is that this sentiment somehow be tapped.
Please recall two things: This black woman says she knows many blacks who agree with her and that their numbers are growing. Also, there is already a considerable number of conservative black thinkers. The only thing that is holding them back is their unwillingness to face the ultimate issue of black group inferiority. On practical issues like affirmative action, welfare, etc., they already agree with you.
Gedahlia Braun, Johannesburg, South Africa
Sir — I read with interest your December “O Tempora” item about the Florida 13-year-old with 15 arrests and the 16-year-old with 30 arrests, who were free to kill a British tourist because they were not behind bars. The larger cities of Brazil have packs of criminal youngsters just like them roaming the street. Merchants hire off-duty police to come by at night and kill them. Since Brazil does not have the means to arrest, try, and incarcerate young criminals, murder is the only “solution” to the problem. Brazil is what we are becoming, and this is the “solution” we, too, may eventually adopt.
Susan C. Hollingsworth, Sacramento, Cal.