|American Renaissance magazine|
|Vol 11, No. 7||July 2000|
The War on White Heritage
Blacking the Profession
Thank You, Mr. Mugabe
Magazine Review: Hip-Hop Nation
O Tempora, O Mores!
Letters from Readers
The War on White Heritage
The attack on the battle flag is only a preliminary skirmish.
After years of bitter controversy, the South Carolina legislature voted in May to take down the Confederate battle flag that has flown over the state capitol in Columbia since 1962 and to move it to “a place of honor” at the Confederate Soldiers Memorial located on the capitol grounds. The legislature’s vote on the flag is regarded as a defeat for the defenders of the flag, mainly a coalition of Southern traditionalist groups and Civil War buffs, and a victory for the opposing coalition that demanded the removal of the flag: the NAACP, Big Business, and an odd partnership of political liberals and conservatives.
Many white Americans, especially those outside the South, have shown little interest in the controversy and wonder why it even exists. They regard the issue as one of exclusively Southern, historical, or black interest and fail to see the larger implications of the controversy for themselves. The fact is, however, that the conflict over Confederate symbols is not only about those symbols or even about honoring the Confederacy, but also about issues of national and racial heritage with which all white Americans should be concerned regardless of what they think of the Civil War or where they live.
Southern traditionalists and Civil War buffs honor the Confederate flag and similar symbols for a variety of reasons, but those symbols are as much a part of general American history as the “Don’t Tread On Me” rattlesnake flag of the American Revolution or the Lone Star flag of the Republic of Texas. Until recently, few Americans saw any difference between honoring and displaying those historic banners of American legend and honoring and displaying the Confederate battle flag or the several other flags associated with the Confederacy.
Only with the advent of the “civil rights” era and of mandated racial equality have the Confederate flag and all other symbols associated with the Confederacy been singled out for attack, and of course the reason is that these flags and symbols are the emblems of a government and culture that was based on slavery and racial inequality. In an age in which the egalitarian imperative is absolute and “racism” is virtually a religious taboo, continuing to honor and display these symbols in public — especially by state and local governments — constitutes an outright act of resistance to the dominant egalitarian orthodoxies.
Moreover, the NAACP, which has been crusading against Confederate symbols for decades, is increasingly tipping its true hand, revealing that behind its overblown rhetoric about the flag (a 1991 NAACP resolution characterized the Confederate flag as “an odious blight upon the universe” and “the ugly symbol of idiotic white supremacy racism and denigration” [sic]) and the Confederacy lies another, far broader, and much more radical agenda. The NAACP and similar groups want the removal and erasure not only of Confederate symbolism but also of a wide range of symbols and icons from American history that have no association with the Confederacy or the ante-bellum South. The purpose of this attack is to emphasize that American civilization itself is “racist” and that virtually all the symbols, icons, heroes, songs, and institutions of the American past or at least its most important and defining ones have to be discarded or radically reconstructed to suit the new “anti-racist” dogmas the NAACP upholds.
In launching this broad attack on the historic symbolism of America, the NAACP is embarking on what is almost explicitly a revolutionary course, intended eventually to lead to the destruction of the traditional civilization of the United States and the establishment of a new, purportedly egalitarian, and essentially totalitarian order that replaces the real, historic traditions of the American past with the fabricated propaganda and “Afrocentric” racial mythology of which the NAACP approves.
In this new order, whites — whether Southern or not — would be denied any public affirmation of their cultural and historical identity, and the denial of their identity would more easily allow their cultural and political subjugation to the non-white majority that has been projected to emerge in the United States in the next half century. The end result of the attack on Confederate symbolism, in other words, is not merely the disappearance of the Confederate flag, “Dixie,” and other symbols and customs of interest mainly to Southerners and Civil War buffs but, in time, the eradication of all symbols from pre-1960s America that suggest a white-based or “Eurocentric” public identity. With their disappearance and the cultural and racial dispossession it represents would come the racial domination of white Americans by the non-white majority of the next century.
The crusade against Confederate symbolism is so far the most developed part of the anti-white attack on American civilization, and the NAACP and other black nationalist groups have emphasized such symbols because, given their historical association with slavery, they can more easily build a case against them and attract the support of white allies. Given the power of egalitarian propaganda, few mainstream leaders, either conservative or liberal, are willing to defend Confederate symbolism, and some of the most effective enemies of the flag have been Republicans, “conservatives,” or white Southerners themselves.
In the 1990s, the war on public Confederate symbolism escalated dramatically, with the NAACP demanding the removal of Confederate flags flown over state capitols in Alabama as well as South Carolina. In the former state, the governor removed the flag after a state judge ruled in 1993 that flying it violated state law. Also in 1993, the white liberal Democratic governor of Georgia, Zell Miller, sought to alter the design of his state’s official flag, which contains a Confederate battle flag, on the grounds that it would be an “embarrassment” to the state during the Olympic Games scheduled for 1996. The governor’s efforts were unsuccessful. In Mississippi, there are current demands to remove the Confederate battle flag in the corner of the state flag, and the governor has appointed a commission to consider doing so. There are also controversies about the state flags of Arkansas and Florida, which contain designs either symbolizing the Confederacy or resembling its flag.
In addition to attacks on the flag, songs such as Virginia’s state anthem “Carry Me Back to Ole Virginny” and Maryland’s “Maryland, My Maryland” have also been attacked as “racist.” At the University of Mississippi, the Confederate flag and similar symbols, including the football team mascot, “Colonel Reb,” a caricature of a Confederate officer, have been banned by the university administration.
Virginia, and especially the state (and Confederate) capital of Richmond, has been the scene of some of the most bitter and far-reaching attacks on Confederate symbolism. The construction of a statue of black tennis player Arthur Ashe in 1995-96 on Richmond’s Monument Avenue — famous for statues honoring Confederate leaders — was intended to disrupt the symbolism of the monuments. In 1999, another controversy erupted in Richmond over a mural that displayed a picture of Robert E. Lee. Black city councilman Sa’ad El-Amin demanded that it be removed and threatened violence if it were not. “Either it comes down or we jam,” he said. The Lee portrait was later firebombed and defaced with anti-white invectives and racial epithets (“white devil, black baby killer, kill the white demons”). Earlier this year Mr. El-Amin and other blacks on the city council voted to remove the names of Confederate generals from two bridges in the city and rename them after local “civil rights” leaders. El-Amin also announced that “Monument Avenue is on my list of targets.”
The NAACP also embarked on a campaign to force the Virginia governor to cancel annual proclamations of April as “Confederate History Month” and threatened a boycott of the state if the custom were continued. “Anything less” than promising not to issue the proclamation again “is unacceptable,” Salim Khalfani, state director of the NAACP, proclaimed. On May 10, Republican Governor James Gilmore reached a “compromise” that consisted of a promise to “reconsider” Confederate History Month and to meet regularly with NAACP leaders if they did not proceed with plans for a boycott. It is probable that proclamations of “Confederate History Month” will be discontinued.
It has been in South Carolina, however, that the most protracted controversies over the Confederate flag have taken place. The state legislature in 1961 enacted a public law mandating that the Confederate battle flag be flown over the state capitol dome beneath the American flag and the state flag. Contrary to what the flag’s enemies have asserted, this was not so much defiance of the “civil rights” movement as the desire, encouraged by the U.S. Congress and President Eisenhower, to mark the centennial of the Civil War. The flag at that time was largely uncontroversial, and it remained so until the early 1990s.
In 1994, the NAACP announced it would boycott the state unless the flag were removed, but a populist campaign under the leadership of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) was able to prevent the flag’s removal, and in the gubernatorial campaign of that year, the Republican candidate David Beasley promised he would not seek to take down the flag. Soon after being elected, however, Gov. Beasley embarked on a campaign to do just that. Flag supporters and the CofCC went on to lead a movement to unseat the governor for his betrayal. Gov. Beasley was defeated in his re-election campaign in 1998; he has since acknowledged that his reversal of position on the flag was the main reason for his defeat.
In 1999 the NAACP returned to the fight, announcing yet another boycott. This time the boycott attracted the support of liberal organs like the New York Times and Washington Post. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Urban League, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and the National Progressive Baptist Convention all canceled conventions in South Carolina. The state Chamber of Commerce told Republican lawmakers that “businesses were considering cutting off campaign contributions to lawmakers who support the flag,” and major foreign corporations that have built plants in the state — BMW and Michelin Tire — also demanded that the issue be “resolved quickly” (meaning that the legislators accede to black demands).
Flag defenders were by no means idle during the controversy, and in October, 1999, and January 2000, they staged mass demonstrations in Columbia. Nevertheless, the charges of “racism” lobbed at anyone who defended the flag, threats to the $14.5 billion-a-year tourism industry, and the general desire for acceptance by the cultural mainstream all led to a “compromise” measure that relocated the flag to the Confederate Soldiers Memorial. As Julian Bond, national president of the NAACP, remarked, “Money talks.”
But the removal of the flag in South Carolina can be expected only to unleash an even more frenetic crusade against Confederate symbols. As Dr. Neill Payne, executive director of the Southern Legal Resource Center, remarked just afterwards, the vote simply means that it is now “open season on all things Confederate.” Flag enemy Georgia state Rep. Tyrone Brooks explained, “It’s like the civil rights movement. Once we win in South Carolina, we move to Georgia. Once we win in Georgia, it’s on to Mississippi.” The vote in South Carolina only encourages the NAACP and its allies and creates further problems for the mainstream conservatives and businessmen whose principal concern is to avoid controversy.
Indeed, while the main reason for the retreat in South Carolina was fear of the boycott, the NAACP not only refused to call off the boycott after the vote but threatened to intensify it unless the flag were removed from the capitol grounds entirely. NAACP national executive director Kweisi Mfume complained that “to take it from the top of the dome where you had to strain to see it, and move it to a place where anyone coming down the main street will see it is an insult.” Even as the House voted to adopt the compromise measure, black demonstrators burned Confederate and Nazi flags at the Confederate Soldiers Memorial and then sprayed anti-white invectives on the monument itself.
The premise of the compromise was an acknowledgment that while the Confederacy is an important and legitimate part of the South Carolina heritage, it is not (as flying the Confederate flag over the capitol might be taken to imply) the whole or the dominant part of it. Yet the NAACP’s demand that any honoring of the flag be abolished refuses to concede that the Confederacy has any legitimate place in South Carolina or American history at all. The rejection of the Southern and American past was implicit in signs carried by black anti-flag demonstrators last winter that read, “Your Heritage Is Our Slavery.” In rejecting the heritage of the South as merely one of their own enslavement and exploitation, blacks are in effect affirming that they are not part of the culture and nation that are the present-day product of that heritage. What they presumably want celebrated and honored is not the real heritage of the South, in which blacks played a major if subordinate role and from which blacks have derived much of their own cultural identity, but the total extirpation of those parts of the Southern past they find “offensive” (i.e., anything that does not glorify blacks) and the rewriting of the past to magnify and glorify the achievements of their own race.
The black demand for the total extirpation or rewriting of the past is not confined to the South and the Confederacy, however, but also extends to symbols associated with other ethnic groups. Earlier this year the Boston Housing Authority asked residents of public housing to remove displays of shamrocks — which it likened to swastikas or Confederate flags — because this symbol traditionally associated with the Irish was “unwelcome” now that black residents vastly outnumber those of Irish heritage.
But the non-white demand for the erasure of white ethnic and cultural symbols also includes the major symbols of the entire American nation and its past. Indeed, Randall Robinson, a black activist who played an important role in lobbying for sanctions against South Africa to end apartheid, writes that America “must dramatically reconfigure its symbolized picture of itself, to itself. Its national parks, museums, monuments, statues, artworks must be recast in a way to include . . . African-Americans.” It does not seem to matter to Mr. Robinson that the historical events many of these cultural monuments commemorate might not have included blacks; the past must be recreated to include them.
Black rejection of not only the Confederate but the American heritage is clear in the removal of the name of George Washington from a public school in New Orleans. On Oct. 27, 1997 the Orleans Parish School Board, with a 5-2 black majority, voted to change the name of George Washington Elementary to Dr. Charles Richard Drew Elementary (Drew was a black surgeon who made advances in preserving blood plasma); the school itself is 91 percent black. “Why should African-Americans want their kids to pay respect or pay homage to someone who enslaved their ancestors?” asked New Orleans “civil rights” leader Carl Galmon. “To African-Americans, George Washington has about as much meaning as David Duke.”
The same school board also has stripped the names of Confederate Generals P.G.T. Beauregard and Robert E. Lee from schools, under a policy adopted in 1992 that prohibits naming schools after “former slave owners or others who did not respect equal opportunity for all.” Southern slave owners and Confederate generals are, of course, mainly of Southern and local interest, but George Washington is probably the most significant national symbol in the American pantheon. The New Orleans school board decision, the New York Times commented at the time, “underscores the maxim that history is written by those with the power.” In this case, those who have the power are blacks who insist on celebrating their own race and discarding the national heroes of whites.
But Washington is by no means the only American icon to be rejected for his “racism.” In 1996, white former Marxist historian Conor Cruise O’Brien published an article in The Atlantic Monthly arguing that Thomas Jefferson should no longer be included in the national pantheon because of his “racism.” Again, Jefferson, second only to Washington perhaps, is one of the major heroes of the national saga. Rejecting Washington and Jefferson as well as the Confederacy and all slave owners (including many who signed the Declaration and the Constitution and all but two of the first seven presidents of the United States) by itself would effectively alter American history and the American national identity so radically as to be unrecognizable. That is precisely what the Afro-racists plan to do.
The editor of Ebony magazine Lerone Bennett, Jr. is the author of a recent book denouncing Abraham Lincoln for his “racism.” As described in Time magazine (May 15), Mr. Bennett says “Lincoln was a crude bigot who habitually used the N word and had an unquenchable thirst for blackface-minstrel shows and demeaning ‘darky’ jokes,” and he also discusses Lincoln’s remarks about blacks in the debates with Stephen Douglas and on other occasions, as well as his plan to remove blacks from the United States to colonies in Central America. While Bennett’s facts about Lincoln are substantially correct, his book is intended as an attack on and debunking of a major president regarded by many Americans as an iconic figure especially associated with the abolition of slavery and the triumph of egalitarianism.
In February, the New Jersey Senate debated a bill that would have required students in public schools to memorize part of the Declaration, but the bill’s sponsor withdrew it after angry attacks by black lawmakers. As the Associated Press reported, “They objected to the clause that says, ‘All men are created equal’ because when the Declaration was written, that basic democratic principle did not apply to black people.” As black state Sen. Wayne Bryant said, “It is clear that African Americans were not included in that phrase. It’s another way of being exclusionary and insensitive . . . You have nerve to ask my grandchildren to recite [the Declaration]. How dare you? You are now on notice that this is offensive to my community.” He claimed that the bill would involve “reliving slavery.”
The assault on the historic American identity is not mounted only by blacks. Indians and Hispanics in the western part of the United States engage in much the same erasure of white, European symbols and the construction of symbols that glamorize their own cultures. In 1994, the city of San Jose, California, rejected a proposal to construct a public statue of Col. Thomas Fallon, the American soldier who captured the city for the United States in the Mexican-American War, and voted instead to build a statue of the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl.
In San Francisco in 1996, American Indians denounced the relocation to a place outside city hall of a statue honoring the Catholic missionaries who founded the city. The statue shows a reclining Indian with a Franciscan monk standing over him. The American Indian Movement Confederation opposed its relocation, saying that the statue “symbolizes the humiliation, degradation, genocide and sorrow inflicted upon this country’s indigenous people by a foreign invader, through religious persecution and ethnic prejudice.” As in South Carolina, whites compromised — by adding a plaque that read, “With their efforts over in 1834, the missionaries left behind about 56,000 converts — and 150,000 dead. Half the original Native American population had perished during this time from disease, armed attacks and mistreatment.” The statue, designed to commemorate the missionaries’ compassion for the Indians, had been transformed into a confession of genocide. At the demand of the Catholic Church, however, the words “and 150,000 dead” were omitted.
The black and other non-white attacks on historic symbols and icons, therefore, are by no means confined to those associated with the Confederacy but extend to symbols associated with anything non-whites find “offensive.” Given the standards by which the NAACP and similar racial extremists select their targets, there is no reason they should not demand the abolition of the American flag and the U.S. Constitution itself. The Constitution indirectly refers and gives protection to slavery several times, and the American flag flew over a nation in which slavery was a legal and important part of the economy and society far longer than the Confederate flag flew over the four-year Confederacy.
Indeed, the factual premises of the NAACP — that American history is inseparable from recognition of racial inequality and racial differences — are generally correct. As I wrote in American Renaissance in January 1999, throughout American history, “We — Americans in general and our public leaders in particular — repeatedly and continuously recognized the reality and importance of race and the propriety of the white race occupying the ‘superior position,’ and indeed it is difficult to think of any other white-majority nation in history in which recognition of the reality of race has been so deeply imbedded in its thinking and institutions as in the United States.” Given that history, there is virtually no figure, event, or institution of the American past that would not be “offensive” to non-whites today and the obliteration of which they could not as logically demand as they do that of Confederate symbols.
I also wrote, “You cannot have it both ways: either we define the American nation as the product of its past and learn to live with the reality of race and the reality of the racial particularism and racial nationalism that in part defines our national history, or you reject race as meaningful and important, as anything more than skin color and gross morphology, and demand that anyone, past or present, who believes or believed that race means anything more than that be demonized and excluded from any positive status in our history or the formation of our identity. If you reject race, then you reject America as it has really existed throughout its history, and whatever you mean by ‘America’ has to come from something other than its real past.”
It is, of course, the latter course, of rejecting the real past of the United States, that the NAACP and other non-white racial extremists have taken, and that rejection is what makes them extremists. It does not seem to occur to them that there are other “heritages” in the United States besides their own or other communities to which such symbols as Washington and Jefferson, the Declaration and the Confederacy, mean something other than the enslavement and exploitation of blacks.
The indifference and hostility of non-whites to symbols and icons of white heritage and identity expose the central fallacy of the “multiracialism” that our current political and cultural elites promote. Its premise is that different races and ethnic groups can all “get along” with each other, that they can live together in egalitarian harmony, and that, as President Clinton said in 1998, “we can strengthen the bonds of our national community as we grow more racially and ethnically diverse.”
But the reality is that the egalitarianism and universalism of the “civil rights” era have led to the rediscovery of race and the rebirth of racial consciousness among non-whites and hence to the animosity that non-whites feel toward whites and their heritage. It is racial consciousness, not egalitarianism and universalism, that fuels the non-white crusade against the American past, and obviously, if “multiracialism” means that some races with more consciousness, more solidarity, and more power can boycott and bludgeon out of existence the symbols of other races and the cultural legacies the symbols represent, then multiracialism promises nothing but either perpetual racial conflict or merely the same kind of racial supremacy that used to exist in the United States — though with a different supreme race whose rule would be perhaps considerably more draconian than that of whites. Of course, whites can always try to buy temporary peace and harmony by agreeing to every demand of non-white radicalism and abandoning the symbols of their own heritage. That, of course, is exactly what whites today are doing, though every concession merely leads to further demands from non-whites.
It may be that the coalition of Southern traditionalists and Civil War buffs who have been the main defenders of the Confederate flag has committed a tactical error by trying to define the flag as purely a Southern symbol. By doing so, they may have encouraged white Americans outside the South and white Southerners who are indifferent to the Confederacy to believe that the controversy does not have implications for them. Indeed, some of the more zealous attacks on “Yankees” by Southern traditionalists may only have alienated non-Southern whites, and by dwelling on the “Southern-ness” of the flag and its meaning in the Civil War, its defenders may have unnecessarily alienated potential allies.
What the racial assault on the Confederacy and other non-Confederate symbols really shows, however, is not only the dangerous flaws of multiracialism and the inexorable logic of the racial revolution of this century but also that today regional differences among whites — like many other cultural and political differences — are no longer very relevant. It shows that Southerners and “Yankees” today face common enemies and common threats to their rights, interests, identity, and heritage as whites, and that the forces that have declared war on them and their heritage define themselves as well as their foes not in political, regional, or cultural terms but in terms of race. Whites who have been indifferent to the fate of the Confederate flag and similar symbols in the recent controversies should not be surprised, therefore, when historical symbols important to their own identity come under assault from anti-white radicals in the future.
And it is as a race that whites must now learn to resist the war being waged on them. So far from being a symbol of a lost and forgotten cause relevant only to a dwindling band of Confederate loyalists, the Confederate flag and the battles swirling around it today should serve as reminders to all white men and women of a simple lesson: Unless they forsake the many obsolete quarrels and controversies that have long divided them and learn to stand, work, and fight together for their own survival as a people and a civilization, the war against them that their self-proclaimed racial enemies are waging will not permit them or their legacy as a people and civilization to survive at all.
Samuel Francis is a columnist and author. He has a website at www.samfrancis.net.
Blacking the Profession
When History goes Afro-centric.
Medgar Evers College is one of many City University of New York (CUNY) campuses with an open admissions policy. This means it accepts anyone from anywhere who has the equivalent of a high school diploma, and therefore does not attract smart, ambitious students. Both the faculty and student body are overwhelmingly black, and this produces an “academic” environment receptive to unusual claims.
“What would the world be like without black people?” began a speech to students by the college’s Provost, Kofi Lomotey, which was broadcast over New York City educational television in January. Mr. Lomotey was recounting “Theo’s Story,” about the many things we take for granted in our lives that would never have existed had they not been invented by black people.
Theo’s mother explains to him that without the crucial contributions of black people he wouldn’t be able to brush his hair, wear shoes, write a letter, or have a clean floor.
Theo learns that blacks with American names invented the comb, hair brush, dustpan, mop, shoe making machine, clothes dryer, pencil sharpener, fountain pen, typewriter, lawn mower, automobile, automatic transmission, traffic light, refrigerator, air conditioner, elevator, mail drop box, and many other things. Theo — and the students of Medgar Evers College — also learn that a black was the first to perform open-heart surgery.
Presumably, Chinese royalty of more than 2,000 years ago were without combs and brushes since it was African Americans who invented them. Also, given that hair brushes for people with soft, straight hair are not much use on kinky African hair, all non-blacks should be grateful to Liddy O’Newman, the black woman who allegedly invented hair brushes suitable for white people.
Likewise, the ancient Greeks and Romans must always have had dirty floors, since mops and brooms had not yet been invented by American blacks. But even assuming that blacks really had invented some of these things, it’s hard to understand why a people would be so proud to have invented the dustpan. It is impossible to imagine an Italian or a Frenchman crowing that his people had invented the ashtray or the spittoon.
Why even bother to call some of these things inventions? A mail drop box is hardly a monumental breakthrough, and someone would sooner or later have come up with something to serve its purpose.
As it turns out, it is not easy to find out who invented the lawn mower or the pencil sharpener, but I did research some of the things Mr. Lomotey mentions and not one was invented by a black. Alexander Miles did not invent the elevator — or anything else as far as I can tell. The first elevator with an automatic safety device to prevent it from falling if the cable snapped was designed and installed by Elisha Graves Otis in 1852.
It was a German engineer Carl von Linden, not the black John Standard who in 1876 patented the process of liquifying gas that is a basic refrigeration technology. Stuart Cramer and Willis Carrier invented the air conditioner in 1906. In the 1920s Swedish engineers Carl Munters and Baltaz von Platen introduced refrigeration without moving parts. Mr. Lomotey’s Fred Jones seems to have had nothing to do with any of these things. I was unable to find a reference to Dr. Daniel Hale Williams as the first open-heart surgeon, though the Encyclopaedia Britannica lists 20 other pioneers in the field.
That an administrator at a state-funded college should get away with outright fabrications is a logical consequence of open admissions and affirmative action. If there are essentially no standards, the only yardstick is fidelity to an agenda.
A different example of what has replaced standards is the large number of non-white New York City public schools that are deliberately staffed with non-white teachers. Many of them were “socially promoted,” or passed on to the next grade despite failing work, and are not certified to teach. They can take the certification test over and over, and more than 400 teachers have failed four, five, even six years in a row — but still get satisfactory evaluations as teachers. They are satisfactory because they are the right race and promote the right racial message.
Medgar Evers College was sending the same message on Nov. 20, 1999, when it sponsored a six-hour forum on the PBS television series, Wonders of the African World. The host of the panel Clinton Crawford and historian Jack Felder appeared in African costumes for discussions that were once again televised. (It is amusing to see blacks in the alleged attire of their ancestors — most of whom actually wore nothing to speak of. One never sees spokesmen for Mexico in sombreros and ponchos, and even ambassadors from African countries wear suits and ties.)
Mr. Felder said he had a Ph.D. and teaches in the New York City school system. He said the PBS series, which already pushes credibility with its claims for African accomplishment, is really only a hint of real black prowess. He called the author of the series, Henry Louis Gates of Harvard, a “Negro,” which Mr. Felder defined as a false black co-opted to serve white interests. He criticized Mr. Gates for proposing that black Africans ruled Egypt for only 150 years and insisted that blacks established Egypt 13,500 years ago and ruled it throughout the period of the pharaohs.
Mr. Felder also reported that King James of England had the Bible translated into English by William Shake-speare. The proof is to be found in Shakespeare’s signature in Psalm 46. Verse three contains the words “the mountains shake” and verse nine the words “cutteth the spear in sunder.”
Mr. Felder also announced what he called a “bombshell,” revealing that although this fact has been obliterated from “whitewashed” history books, the first president of the United States was a black man, John Hanson. Hanson, explained Mr. Felder, is shown on the two-dollar bill along with Benjamin Ban-neker, the early black surveyor and almanac writer. On the back of the bill there is an engraving of John Trumbull’s painting, “The Signing of the Declaration of Independence,” which portrays the signers. Neither Hanson, Banneker, nor any black is among them.
John Hanson did represent Maryland in the Continental Congress and in 1781 was elected “President of the United States in Congress Assembled,” an office he held for one year. He is sometimes referred to as “the first president of the United States,” but he was a congressional presiding officer and had none of the powers of the president under the Constitution, which was not ratified until 1787.
That much is easy enough to find out, but it is not so easy to prove that a relatively obscure historical figure was not black. The readily-available books on the revolutionary period are silent as to Hanson’s race. Fortunately, I came across a book on the colonial history of Charles County, Maryland, where John Hanson lived (The Price of Nationhood: the American Revolution in Charles County, by Jean B. Lee, 1994). It mentions Hanson’s problem with a runaway slave in 1782, but that is not proof of whiteness, since there were a few free blacks who held slaves. The book contains no portrait of John Hanson, but it does have one of his brother, Samuel — who is white.
It is unlikely, of course, that any student at Medgar Evers College would ever look into what Mr. Felder was claiming, and if he did, would probably only conclude that any suggestion Hanson was white was just part of the great cover-up of black accomplishment. The students were doubtless convinced Mr. Felder was brilliantly exposing “the white man’s lies.”
At the end of the interview, Mr. Felder said blacks must be educated by other blacks. He said America is not going to encourage the development of an African historian because “to make a true African historian is to make an enemy.” It is good that this man, who considers himself a true African historian, had the candor to admit he is an enemy of America. Of course, the media, the politicians, and the liberals will never admit that Mr. Felder and Medgar Evers College are enemies. No matter how many riots, gang rapes, murders, carjackings and muggings there are; no matter how many tax dollars are spent to support welfare mothers and criminals, no matter how many absurd lies are told about our history and culture, whites will always be at fault and must suffer the consequences. We can consider this the new white man’s burden.
Provost Lomotey feels no embarrassment in boosting the self-esteem of his people with fictional accounts of history. The students at Medgar Evers College — as well as those of many other CUNY campuses — will graduate thinking that half the world’s geniuses were black and that today’s civilization owes its existence to the efforts of Africans. They will believe that the “white man” has conspired to hide African accomplishments as part of his effort to “subjugate” blacks. New York City is, indeed, educating enemies of the people who built this country. Given that forces are at work that will reduce whites to a minority in 40 or 50 years, we can expect that the racial and political agenda of New York City — now one of the biggest populations of Third-World people on earth — will become the national agenda.
Mr. Blasi is a former criminal defense attorney and taught for one year in the New York City school system.
Thank You, Mr. Mugabe
The chaos is opening the eyes of the world.
Although it is very much a tragedy in its own right, the plight of white farmers in Zimbabwe is only the latest step in the historical process of ethnic cleansing that has taken place everywhere in Africa since independence. The real significance of Robert Mugabe’s antics is that they have drawn the world’s attention to this process in a way that reveals its true nature more clearly than ever before. The real horror that the chaos in Zimbabwe portends — horror that will make what is now happening seem like a mild disturbance — will be played out in South Africa.
When we view recent events from a historical perspective we see that it is the continuation of what has happened throughout Africa since the end of colonial rule: the disappearance of non-African minorities. Sometimes this has happened peacefully, as in Kenya, from which former British settlers quietly returned to the UK after independence. Sometimes it has been abrupt, as when Idi Amin decided overnight to rob and deport Uganda’s entire Indian community. Sometimes it has been horrific and bloody as the former Portuguese citizens of Mozambique and Angola will tell you. The end result, however, has always been the same.
With the exception of the whites of South Africa there are now no significant non-African minorities left in Sub-Saharan Africa. (I would note, by the way, that this phenomenon is not restricted to Africa. On a recent trip to New York I couldn’t help noticing a glaring lack of diversity in Harlem. With the exception of a tourist bus and a harried-looking Korean I was the only non-African north of 125th Street.) Once Africans gain power and become the majority, people of other races leave or are driven out.
Viewed from this perspective, the flight of the European minority in Zimbabwe is inevitable with or without Mr. Mugabe. It is wishful thinking to believe, as many whites in southern Africa still do, that replacing Mr. Mugabe with a more moderate leader would change things. A new, more reasonable leader in Zimbabwe could stop the blatant ethnic cleansing now underway and probably would enable whites to continue living in Zimbabwe for another decade or two, but he would only delay their inevitable departure. Unlike Mr. Mugabe, however, a credible leader would not solicit sympathy from the West for the plight of southern Africa’s white minority.
If black governments do not force whites out of southern Africa, crime, general lawlessness, and the inevitable decline in living standards to a Third-World level eventually will — regardless of who is in charge of Zimbabwe or South Africa. The tragedy of southern Africa is that unlike other former colonists the majority of whites do not have a European passport they can use to get out when the going gets tough. Whites who don’t have the means, education and passport to leave — the majority — will be stuck in a Third-World hell of violence and poverty. We are already witnessing the steady exodus of educated South Africans to the USA, Europe, and Australia.
This slowly unfolding tragedy has been largely ignored by the international media. Yes, occasional articles are published about the increase in crime and corruption in South Africa but in most cases these are attributed to the legacy of the brutal apartheid regime. With leaders like Nelson Mandela talking in moderate tones about reconciliation, it is difficult to elicit much sympathy for whites forced to witness their civilization crumbling around them.
Now for the first time, thanks to Mr. Mugabe, the general public in the West is learning that Africans are capable of unprovoked systematic racial violence and discrimination against Europeans. [Editor’s note: Zimbabwe has received considerably more attention in Britain than in the United States.] Despite the media’s instinct to ignore and downplay the ethnic cleansing, Mr. Mugabe’s outlandish remarks, along with those of his ally Chenjerai “Hitler” Hunzvi, make him irresistibly newsworthy. It is difficult not to report a world leader’s comments on the sexual orientation of Britain’s Prime Minister, not to mention the anti-white venom of his Idi Amin-style tirades. Thanks to Mr. Mugabe’s antics it has been impossible for the liberal intelligentsia and media to show the recent land grab in Zimbabwe in a positive, anti-colonialist light.
Because of the media’s decades-long anti-apartheid campaign, there has been very little sympathy for the plight of whites in southern Africa. Most people in the West find it difficult to sympathize with people they have been conditioned to view as racist oppressors. There is a feeling among many — and not just among members of the liberal intelligentsia — that black violence against whites in southern Africa is understandable and in many ways justified given the region’s history. Mr. Mugabe has cast a tiny shadow of doubt on this view, and driven a small minority to start thinking in a new way about what is going on. For that we should be thankful.
The fact is that in some respects the situation in South Africa is already worse than in Zimbabwe. Accurate figures are hard to come by, but since Mr. De Klerk ushered in the new rainbow nation an estimated 1,000 or more white farmers and their families have been assaulted, murdered and in some horrific cases tortured to death by their fellow African citizens. Unlike the case in Zimbabwe, this continuing outrage receives absolutely no coverage by the word press. This is because it has not had psychopathic clowns like Robert Mugabe and “Hitler” Hunzvi to draw the world’s attention to it. If it weren’t for them the plight of Zimbabwe’s farmers would also be a non-event. Mr. Mugabe has inadvertently succeeded in highlighting the plight of whites just as Idi Amin made headlines when he expelled Uganda’s Indians in 1972. Interestingly, Britain at that time granted the Indians the right to live in the United Kingdom, something the current government seems reluctant to do for Zimbabwe’s whites.
Mr. Mugabe has therefore issued a wake-up call to whites in South Africa — but they aren’t asleep, they are in a coma. On a business trip to South Africa last December I was astonished at the state of denial in which I found most European South Africans. It was surreal to sit in a luxurious restaurant in Sandon, a suburb of Johannesburg, discussing business and rugby — everything except what really mattered, which is the future of the country. People carry on as if everything were normal.
As a visitor it was easy to believe after a couple of days that perhaps my perception of South Africa’s future was excessively gloomy, since everyone seemed so confident that things were going to sort themselves out and improve. In fact I avoided meaningful conversation about South Africa’s future to avoid being seen as negative — no doubt others do, too, and much that should be said remains unspoken. And yet the constant sight of razor wire around suburban homes, along with polite advice not to visit downtown Johannesburg even in the daytime served as reminders that despite appearances, things were not normal. Hopefully, Mr. Mugabe’s actions have succeeded in driving home the hard fact that denying a problem and not talking about it does not make it go away. Perhaps those who can leave but hesitated are now packing their bags, abandoning their homes and businesses, and getting out while they still can.
The real tragedy in southern Africa has yet to take place. In the years to come the West will no doubt be faced with several million whites pleading to be taken in as refugees. The mass media and Western governments will try their best to cover up and ignore what is going on until the plight of whites becomes so extreme that even the most liberal reporters won’t be able to resist the newsworthiness of filming white women and children begging for their lives.
But even after it becomes impossible to ignore what is happening the liberal media will resort to smearing the whites trying to flee South Africa as racists unworthy of living in a multicultural society. In my mind’s eye I can already see distinguished men of learning and religion reminding the public that we shouldn’t focus on the plight of only one segment of the South African population and that all South Africans of every race deserve our sympathy and support, etc., etc. When that happens it will be useful to point to the likes of Mr. Mugabe as examples of the real reason southern Africa has degenerated into barbarism. Mr. Mugabe has given us a striking example of the incompetence, corruption and hopelessness of African rule and in doing so has generated a groundswell of public support for the millions of white South Africans who, before long, will be knocking at our door.
Mr. Dempster is an Australian businessman living in Ireland.
Poison distilled into sound.
The Source: The Magazine of Hip-Hop Music, Culture & Politics (monthly), single-issue price: $2.95, one-year subscription: $12.95.
In the May 2000 issue of AR there were samples of anti-white lyrics from rap groups. Many of them urged the murder and torture of whites or “devils,” as the rap world likes to call them. Not all of rap (also known as hip-hop) is so openly anti-white, but it is a huge industry with several publications, and the biggest and glossiest of these is The Source. It is a monthly published in New York City and claims a circulation of 440,000. It began in 1988 as a one-page newsletter and has grown tremendously. The March 2000 issue is 290 slick pages stuffed with ads from companies like Foot Locker, Nike, Nintendo, Calvin Klein, and Tommy Hilfiger.
Rap and Sex
Most of the articles are about hip-hop groups and their music. Almost all performers go by stage names like Puff Daddy, Snoop Dogg, Da Brat and Ghostface Killah. Some of the writing in The Source is phonetic Ebonics, in which men become “niggas” or “gang-stas,” and women are often “hoes” or bitches. “What” becomes “whut,” and “boys” is written as “boyz.” Some of the articles are so filled with slang they are nearly incomprehensible. This is a from an interview with rapper Lil Wayne:
Whut is a Hot Boy?
A paper chaser who got his block on fire. Remain in the G until the moment he expires. Know what it is to make somethin’ out of nuthin.’ Handle his biz and don’t be cryin’ and sufferin’.
Whut is the meaning of bling bling?
Icy. You can’t even say what it says ‘cause it’s too icy.
This is an exchange with rapper RZA of the group Wu-Tang Clan:
A lot of critics say that Wu fell off after Wu-Tang Forever [a previous album]. And there has been something missing from each project that has come out since. What happened?
After the Wu-Tang Forever tour, I personally took a look at the whole Clan, like, ‘Yo, right now, niggas know us for Voltron, but we gotta break down to the lions. Everybody go their directions.’ I ain’t been wit’ anyone but Ghost and my C-artists for almost two years. I assigned Power to Rae and Deck. I assigned Divine to Meth and Cappadonna. I said, ‘I’m a rock me, Ghost and U-God, na’mean?’ Dirt . . . he’s just Dirt, na’mean? As far as Masta Killa, I’m just gonna keep ‘im, but he got an album finished. Basically we broke the sh*t down on purpose.
Many of the interviews and articles drip with sex talk. Again from the interview with Lil Wayne:
Whut color is the inside of a whale?
The inside of a whale . . . I don’t f****n’ know. But the inside of a p***y is pink.
Whut’s the first thing you do when a girl backs that ass up?
Make her drop it like it’s hot.
Whut’s the first thing you do after a show?
F**k a ho, slang d**k.
An article on female rapper Da Brat begins by quoting her on the set of a video shoot saying, “Can somebody get some tissues and wipe around my titties?” She also shows a sophisticated understanding of promotion: “The album cover [of my next release] is going to be tight, wet and squeezing . . . Hopefully niggas will say, ‘damn, I wanna f**k her,’ so I can get the record sales goin’.”
A review of an album by a group called Hypnotize Camp quotes the lyrics: “I conversates/I’m tryin’ to f**k on the first date . . .” Other songs on the album include “Project Hoes” and “D**k Suckin’ Hoes.” Many of the photos and advertisements show provocatively dressed women in suggestive poses and men with their shirts off. Advertisements in the back of the magazine tout phone sex and 1-900 numbers with names like “I like it Raw!” “Phat Phone Phun” and “Love Shack.” Others offer videos of exotic dancers and “uncensored” tapes of black celebrations like “Freaknik.”
Half the pages in The Source are ads and most of them are for clothing or accessories. From the look of the rappers and the advertisements, hip-hop is serious about clothing and jewelry. For men, the advertisers tout baggy designer jeans, basketball shoes, leather boots and sneakers, baggy athletic shorts, Italian shoes and something called “urban style.” Many of the rappers and men in advertisements wear gold chains, bracelets and rings. The hot look for male rappers is to go bear-chested with their pants hanging low enough to show their underwear. Many have tattoos and wear kerchiefs on their heads. Almost all strike angry, glaring poses in front of the camera. There are very few articles about women; The Source is clearly aimed at black men.
There must be more than 500 photographs of people in the magazine and only about ten are not blacks. The Source is free of the “diversity in advertising” found in white magazines. It is also worth noting that even though there are a few well-known white rappers none is even mentioned in The Source.
Because the music, clothes, fashion and behavior in The Source are explicitly, exclusively black, big-name advertisers run ads in the magazine with nothing but black faces. Needless to say if there were ever a white version of The Source, the same advertisers would boycott it rather than produce all-white ads for it.
Though not blatantly anti-white the magazine promotes black consciousness in its political articles. In a story on banned books subtitled “Books They Didn’t Want You to Read,” Laini Madhubuti writes about “conservative U.S. censors” battling the “cultural merit of several classic works of literature.” These include books by Malcolm X, Toni Morrison and Alice Walker.
A glowing review of a book called Standing at the Scratch Line by Maya Angelou’s son Guy Johnson tells us:
In his debut novel, Johnson introduces us to LeRoi ‘King’ Tremain, an African American man living in the early 20th century, who, while raiding a compound with his uncle, murders two corrupt white police officers. To avoid any repercussions against his family, King leaves home and enters World War I. His brushes with violence don’t end there, however. During the war, King ends up killing bigoted US soldiers and Germans.“Later on in the book, our protagonist opens a lucrative club in Harlem but eventually chooses to move back to his hometown, New Orleans. Despite confrontations with the KKK there, King finally establishes a peaceful way of life.
A section called Media Watch recounts the mainstream media’s coverage of hip-hop. The lead story is about Sean “Puffy” Combs, who is often seen with a Mexican movie star named Jennifer Lopez. The Source reprints a New York Daily News quote from a Puerto Rican who is not happy with Miss Lopez’ choice of boyfriend: “She has to represent our whole race. If she sticks with this guy, I just don’t know.” The Source’s opinion: “If Puffy were white, we doubt the media would make it a point to print random quotes from people who think Jennifer should dump Puff.”
The March issue profiles San Francisco mayor Willie Brown. Titled, “The Original Big Willie,” the article starts with: “Playa, you got game? Meet San Francisco mayor Willie Brown. This O.G. not only plays for all the chips, he knows how to look fly while doin’ it. Take notes.” The story goes on to say that “Da Mayor” is “known as much for his fresh fits, fly girls and fast cars as for policies and power. Benzos, Porsches and Ferraris go hand-in-hand with tailor-made suits and his love of San-Fran’s nightlife.”
The interview is mostly puff but gets serious about recent California ballot initiatives. After Mr. Brown says he opposed propositions to dismantle affirmative action and welfare for illegals The Source asks: “So was all that designed to limit the participation of minorities?” Mr. Brown replies: “I think it was designed to do exactly that. I think the old guard, the old conservative white guys are concerned that their power is slipping and if that power hold slips, they know what’s going to fill or grab it: It’s going to be a collection of racial minorities. And they are doing everything they can to position themselves so that even though their numbers diminish, their influence continues. And all of those things — Prop 209, Prop 187, English only — is all designed to do that.”
Perhaps unintentionally, The Source reveals how removed hip-hop is from the rest of the country. In something called its publisher’s credo, it bills itself as a “voice for the Hip-Hop Nation.” This form of “music” is, in effect, the sound-track of a nation — an alien and often repulsive nation.
|IN THE NEWS|
O Tempora, O Mores!
Zimbabwe Over the Edge
Two more white farmers have been killed, as Zimbabwe continues its chaotic lurch towards elections. International observers are now in place to monitor the June 24-25 ballot, but there is little chance it will accurately reflect voter sentiment. As of June 10, President Robert Mugabe’s supporters had killed an estimated 30 political opponents and had beaten and raped hundreds more. Farm invasions continued unabated.
Mr. Mugabe’s ruling ZANU-PF party, which holds 147 of 150 seats in parliament, faces its first real electoral fight since it came to power 20 years ago. The opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) is only nine months old, but has capitalized on widespread disgust with rampant corruption and mismanagement to mount a serious challenge. Even whites — less than one percent of the population — who have so far been careful to stay out of politics, have rallied to the MDC. It is in this context that ZANU-PF supporters have invaded an estimated 1,000 white-owned farms, where they like to beat and terrorize black workers, intimidate the owners, and insist that the land be turned over to them.
Lately, ruling party militants have taken to invading schools and clinics, where they assault the workers and warn them not to vote for the MDC. Many health and education workers have run away, leaving an unknown number of communities without services. The Zimbabwe Teachers Association estimates that Mugabe-supporters have disrupted at least 200 of the 6,000 government schools.
Mr. Mugabe has stepped up the anti-white campaign, insisting that anyone who formerly held dual citizenship has now been stripped of Zimbabwean citizenship and cannot vote or run for office. Of the 70,000 remaining whites, this rule affects an estimated 20 to 30 thousand who had kept British passports. The move is widely seen as a first step towards expulsion. Mr. Mugabe has also denounced white judges, saying that Zimbabweans must not be ruled by “foreigners.” Two of five supreme court judges are white, as are five of 20 appeals court judges.
In the land-grab campaign, on June 2 the state-run Herald published a list of 804 farms — almost all owned by whites — which were to be turned over to blacks. Newly-passed laws give whites no right to appeal the seizures, which were to begin 30 days later. Some whites gave up hope and began moving out. On June 7, Mr. Mugabe said he intended to seize every one of the 4,000 white-owned farms and that if any whites were left on the land it would be due to “our own charity.” He has gone on to urge blacks in neighboring countries also to throw whites off whatever land they may still own.
Needless to say, the already-weak economy is suffering badly. Because of chaos on the farms, Zimbabwe has not been exporting tobacco, and cannot import gasoline and cooking oil. Hundreds of cars line up at the gas stations that still have supplies, and police have used tear gas to break up mobs at cooking oil outlets. Mr. Mugabe says the British are causing the shortages by intercepting Zimbabwe-bound ships and offering them double the market rate to take their cargoes elsewhere. Zimbabwe has defaulted on its debt and the World Bank was expected to halt aid disbursements.
Tourism, which accounts for six percent of the economy, is dead. The country’s main hotel chain estimates lost bookings are costing it $1 million a month. In mid-June, its prestigious Elephant Hills casino and hotel at Victoria Falls had only 14 of its 220 rooms occupied, and management expected to shut down entire wings and send away two-thirds of the staff.
No Western observers think the elections can possibly be fair. Amnesty International says “state-sponsored terrorism” has cowed the opposition, and both the European Union and British Commonwealth have sent teams to watch over what both organizations expect will be a rigged election. The UN had planned to help monitor the voting but pulled out after a disagreement over its role. The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee has approved a bill to suspend American assistance to Zimbabwe until democracy and the rule of law are restored. In rural areas, where 65 percent of the people live, ZANU-PF activists have been telling voters they will die from witchcraft if they vote for the opposition, and many reportedly believe them.
Political violence continues to take a distinctly African form. In early June, Mugabe-supporters sang ZANU-PF songs as they beat to death Thadeus Rukuni, an MDC candidate. Another killing centered on Chenjerai “Hitler” Hunzvi, who is one of the leaders of the farm invasion campaign. He is a doctor with an office in the town of Budiriro. Residents stormed the office, claiming Mr. Hunzvi and other “war veterans” were using it as a torture chamber for political opponents. One person was killed in the fracas.
The latest killings of white farmers bring the total to five. On May 12, John Weeks managed to wound one of five men who attacked his farm but was shot in the stomach and died. At a different farm, Tony Oates also returned fire and killed one of his attackers before being shot to death. Amazingly, farmers who realize they have come to the end of the road in Zimbabwe are looking into farm purchases elsewhere in Africa. Dozens have visited neighboring Zambia, where there are still huge tracts of virgin, arable land. They are optimistic about Zambia because 50 percent of the people live in cities and land is said not to be an emotional issue since so many people work in copper mines.
To the great consternation of whites in the region, South African president Thabo Mbeki continues to support the lawlessness in Zimbabwe. He is openly sympathetic to the land invasions and insists there is no reason to doubt that the elections will be fair. There are — -more than five million whites in South Africa and they have extensive investments in what is still by far the most dynamic economy in black Africa. Some are beginning to wonder if the campaign in Zimbabwe — and the muted reaction in the West — do not herald the eventual expulsion of all whites from southern Africa.
Diversity in Paradise
The Pacific island of Fiji has a population of about 800,000 of whom 51 percent are native Fijians and 44 percent are originally from India. The Indians, who dominate commerce, were originally brought in by British colonizers to work in the sugar cane fields. The two groups have never had much in common. Native Fijians converted to a boisterous form of Methodism while the Indians have remained Hindu and Muslim.
In 1970 the British gave Fiji independence and a constitution that recognized Fijian “paramountcy.” It set aside 83 percent of the land for native Fijians with others allowed only to rent this land. There were separate seats in parliament for Fijians and Indians and the Prime Minister was always to be Fijian. This arrangement came to an end in April, 1987, with the election victory of the Labor Party, which had a Fijian as titular head but was established to advance Indian interests. One month later a Fijian army colonel named Sitiveni Rabuka overthrew the new government and proclaimed himself ruler.
This did not sit well with white countries, which drove Fiji into economic and political isolation for ten years. Britain even managed to have it booted out of the Commonwealth. Some 70,000 Indians cleared out.
In 1997, Mr. Rabuka finally gave in to international pressure and accepted a new constitution that did not have safeguards for natives. In May, 1999, the revived Labor Party won an absolute majority in the polls and Fiji got its first Indian Prime Minister, Mahendra Chaudhry. This should not have surprised anyone: The Indians are far better organized and harder-working than the Fijians. The Fijians point out that they were there first and say the country belongs to them.
Natives immediately accused the new government of pro-Indian bias and, indeed, many of Mr. Chaudhry’s ministers were Indian. The government also wanted to fiddle with the land ownership rules. Fijians took to the streets to demand Mr. Chaudhry’s resignation but he responded by banning further demonstrations, claiming that police had advised him they might not be able to control the crowds.
On May 19, a Fijian businessman by the name of George Speight led a group of masked gunmen into the parliament building and took Mr. Chaudhry and his mostly-Indian cabinet hostage. Fijians celebrated by looting and burning Indian businesses. The police and armed forces, largely composed of Fijians, have done little to rescue the hostages or put down rioters. Mr. Speight wants to abolish the constitution that, he says, gives too much power to Indians and wants guarantees that Indians can never run the government.
The crisis has dragged on as foreign governments yelp and Indians’ stores continue to go up in flames. On May 24 about 1,000 coup-supporting Fijians gathered at the parliament building for a knees-up church service, with indigenous women singing Fijian songs. Mr. Speight celebrated by dancing with some of the women. A council of tribal chiefs, who have no legislative authority but have considerable prestige, considered a plan to replace Mr. Chaudhry with a Fijian in return for release of the hostages.
On May 29, the military took over, declared martial law, formally ousted the president and Prime Minister, and granted amnesty to Mr. Speight. Whatever finally happens, Fiji is yet another example of the dangers of diversity. (Rohan Sullivan, Gunmen Claim to Have Seized Power in Fiji, AP, May 19, 2000. Tension Grows as Fiji Chiefs Meet, AP, May 24, 2000. Rodney Joyce, Fiji’s Military Takes Power and Imposes Martial Law, Washington Post, May 30, 2000, p. A21. Henry Srebrnik, The Fiji Coup: A Cautionary Tale, National Post (Canada), May 30, 2000.)
Better to Let Them Die?
The white man just can’t get it right. Police are not supposed to stop black drivers more often than white drivers because that would be “racial profiling,” but black drivers are less likely to be wearing seat belts. What to do?
There are two kinds of seat belt laws. Thirty-two states have “secondary” seat belt laws, according to which the police are not allowed to stop a driver merely for not wearing his belts but may ticket him for this if they stop him for some other offense. Seventeen states have “standard” laws that let the cops stop and ticket drivers for a seat belt offense alone (New Hampshire doesn’t have either kind of law). In states with “standard” laws there is about 80 percent compliance, but only 58 percent of blacks aged 18 to 29 wear belts. Where there are “secondary” laws, the figures are 63 percent and 46 percent. Blacks are also less likely to use infant and child safety seats, which helps explain why the motor vehicle death rate for small children is three times higher for blacks than for others.
A number of states are considering changing from secondary to standard laws, which give the police authority to stop unbelted drivers and invariably increase the rate of seat belt usage. Some state legislators oppose the change because, although it would presumably save lives, it would give officers yet another reason to stop more blacks. (Matthew L. Wald, Ticketing the Unbelted: Will Blacks be a Target? New York Times, April 28, 2000.)
Mustn’t Hurt Their Feelings
The British have gone soft on law enforcement for the same reasons. There was much hand-wringing in England last year after publication of the MacPherson Report, which accused British police of widespread “institutional racism.” As part of the breast-beating, London bobbies cut back on the number of blacks they stopped for questioning. What should result but an unprecedented 36 percent jump in London street crime? Blacks, we learn, are responsible for 50 percent of all street crime and 65 percent of the muggings, so when the police stopped questioning blacks crime was sure to rise.
What to do? Today’s psychologically hand-cuffed police force can’t possibly go back to the old way of doing things, so how will they counter charges that they have “disengaged” from street crime? London will spend loads of time and money on DNA testing of any bits of hair or skin left by street criminals. They will also use fancy facial recognition equipment — the kind used by anti-terrorist units — to go through endless reels of security camera footage in the hope of catching criminals. The police are also under orders to cultivate informants in robbery gangs who will presumably rat on their pals. No expense or effort will be spared so as to avoid the cheapest, most obvious tactic of all: paying closer attention to young blacks. (John Steele, Police Will Tackle Street Crime with Anti-Terror Tactics, London Daily Telegraph, May 15, 2000.)
More British Insanity
Robert Birchall of Cambridge, England, was looking for a copy of the International Herald Tribune in the city library and noticed that Kenya-born Mugai Mbaya had it as well as another newspaper. Mr. Birchall explained to Mr. Mbaya that it was not customary to take more than one paper at a time, and the two got into a tugging match over the Tribune. Sara Payne, also in the library, says she overheard a whispered exchange in which Mr. Birchall told Mr. Mbaya to “go back to your own country.” She says she was “appalled” and that “in the circumstances it was a racist remark. I went over and consoled and commiserated with Mr. Mbaya.” Mr. Birchall has since been fined £100 for the recently-established public-order offense of “using racially threatening or abusive words.” Mr. Mbaya, who came to Britain in 1971, says, “It is good to see these new laws being applied and that black and ethnic communities are taken seriously by the courts.” (David Sapstead, Whispered Racial Abuse in Library Brought to Book, London Telegraph, May 27, 2000.)
Yet More British Insanity
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport in Britain has told museums and galleries that unless they can show that at least 12 percent of their visitors are non-white they could lose government funding. The department says it wants to get minorities more interested in Britain’s heritage, but gave no guidelines for how Pakistanis and Jamaicans were to be persuaded to go to museums. Not everyone admires the new policy. Lord Tebbit, a leading opposition figure remarked, “My first reaction was one of joy, because those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.” (British Museums Get Racial Quotas, Washington Times, June 7, 2000, p. 2.)
Congressman Joe Baca of California and a group of other Hispanic congressmen have introduced a resolution in the House that would make the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo an American national holiday like Labor Day, Christmas, or July 4th. (Steve Di Meglio, Cinco de Mayo Pitched as National Holiday, Desert Sun (Palm Springs), May 4, 2000.)
The US Air Force is in a dither over a “racist” remark made by its very first woman chaplain to be promoted to general. The day after Gen. Lorraine Potter got her promotion, she was in a meeting to discuss personnel assignments and is supposed to have said, “African-American chaplains are good pastors and preachers but cannot do staff work.” “Staff work” means the administrative jobs an officer must do to achieve high rank.
The Air Force is now investigating not only Gen. Potter, who is white, but the entire chaplain corps for “racism.” Twenty-six years ago, Gen. Potter became the first woman to join the Air Force as a chaplain and has been a diversity mascot ever since. The force is much distressed over her alleged remarks, but the chaplain corps is not immune to charges of discrimination. In March, evangelical preachers in the Navy filed a class-action suit in federal court, claiming they are denied promotions in favor of churchmen from traditional denominations. (Rowan Scar-borough, Remark of Female Chaplain Probed, Washington Times, April 20, 2000.)
In the part of California between Los Angeles and San Diego there are several Indian reservations and many off-reservation Indians. There are also many Hispanics and the two groups do not get along. In high schools in Escondido, Fallbrook, and Valley Center there has been Hispanic/Indian violence for years. On May 11, 30 police officers broke up a fight in Valley Center High School after days of hostility broke out into a full-scale riot.
The uplift experts act as if racial and ethnic harmony are the norm, and that any time there are fisticuffs there must be sage explanation. Hispanics, they say, are jealous of all the government programs available for Indians. Or perhaps Indians think Hispanics have looked down on them ever since Mexico ran California. The stupidest explanation of all comes from Juan Granados, who has been hired by the schools to train students to love each other. “I think the fear of coming together just scares people,” he explains. “It’s just fear of the unknown, like ‘What happens if we get along?’” (Elizabeth Welberg and Chet Barfield, Racial Brawl Breaks Out at Valley Center High School, San Diego Union Tribune, May 12, 2000.)
KC Sinks Still Deeper
The school district of Kansas City, Missouri, is famous as a spectacular failure in the attempt to persuade Americans that race doesn’t matter. In 1985, federal District Judge Russell Clark decided to tempt white students out of the suburbs into mostly-black Kansas City schools by ordering such lavish spending that the schools would be irresistible. And spend he did, to the tune of billions of dollars. Of course, it didn’t work. Not even Russian fencing coaches, radio and television studios, dust-free diesel workshops, and planetariums were enough to persuade white parents to send their children to school with city blacks.
Now, it seems, they were not even enough to keep the blacks above water. The Kansas City school district has failed to pass a single one of the 11 standards — test scores, attendance rates, dropout rates, etc. — by which the state education review board evaluates schools. This gold-plated system, which has probably splashed out more money per public school student than ever before in history, has lost its accreditation. The district has two years to improve or be taken over by the state. (Dirk Johnson, ‘F’ for Kansas City Schools Adds to the District’s Woes, New York Times, May 3, 2000.)
A Bite Out of the System
In Miami, Hispanics and blacks have joined forces to defraud the Medicaid system. The fraud involves rounding up black children and taking them to Hispanic dentists who then bill Medicaid for unnecessary, often imaginary work. They choose children for patients because adults are not eligible for Medicaid for most kinds of dental work. Some of the children have gone to the dentist as many as 30 times a year, using different names to cover their tracks. In return, they get a few dollars and a meal at Chuck E. Cheese. To get customers, black drivers in vans cruise black neighborhoods offering free meals to children on the street. If there are parents around they are rent the children for $5.00 a head or persuade them this is a free, city service.
Since January 1999, Medicaid has terminated contracts with more than 50 Florida dentists and a number have been arrested. Officials estimate that about ten percent of the $7 billion Medicaid spends annually in Florida is siphoned off through fraud. (Andrea Elliott, Dental Fraud Scam Lures Kids, Bilks State, Miami Herald, May 14, 2000, p. 1A.)
Miami also seems to be the nation’s capital for fake doctors. In the eight months through March there were 38 arrests for practicing medicine without a license. Rosario Diaz, for example, used carpenter’s tools to fix teeth in his roach-infested apartment. Authorities bundled him off to his native Guatemala. These quacks — and their patients — are invariably Third-Worlders. (Marika Lynch, Arrests of Phony Doctors on the Rise, Miami Herald, March 31, 2000.)
40 Acres and a Lexus
The Finance and Human Relations Committee of the Chicago City Council has voted to urge Congress to grant reparations to blacks because of slavery. The vote came after a day-long hearing that the Chicago Sun-Times called “equal parts history lesson, revival meeting and group therapy session.” Attended by an overwhelmingly black audience, the hearing took place in a large auditorium in the City Council chambers decorated with posters about slavery, Jim Crow, and the Ku Klux Klan. Only three white aldermen took part.
Black Alderwoman Carrie Austin said, “There’s not enough money in this world that would be satisfactory, but there should be something.” What should that “something” be? “I want 40 acres and a Lexus,” she explained. “You can keep the mule.” (Fran Spielman, U.S. Urged to Pay for Slavery, Chicago Sun-Times, April 27, 2000. Flynn McRoberts & Monica Day, Aldermen Back Bid for Slavery Reparations, April 27, 2000.)
El Partido de lo Nuestro
Last month we reported that the Elian Gonzalez flap has hardened feelings among Miami blacks and whites against the Cubans, whom they see as wanting to take the law into their own hands. On May 17, the mayor of heavily-Hispanic Hialeah, Raul Martinez, retorted that Cubans would not let themselves be “stepped on” and that they should forget the Democrats and Republicans and start their own party, El Partido de lo Nuestro (The Party of Us). He also complained that there are Miami-Dade County Commissioners who have Hispanic names but “don’t think like Hispanics.” He also said it made him furious to see people throwing bananas at Miami City Hall — to make the point that it is run like a banana republic — and insisted that banana-tossers be arrested for littering. (Sandra Marquez Garcia, Hialeah Mayor Rips ‘Attacks’ on Cubans, Miami Herald, May 18, 2000.)
More Unsung Casualties
The May issue mentioned two black brothers, Anthony and Nathaniel Cook, who have confessed to a string of rapes and murders that terrorized Toledo, Ohio, from 1973 to 1981. We now have photographs of victims and a little more information about the crimes. They killed at least nine people — all white — and in some cases tortured their victims before killing them. The brothers, now aged 51 and 42, specialized in creeping up on couples sitting in cars at night. They would rape the woman, then kill her and the man. Usually they shot people, but in the case of their youngest victim, a 12-year-old girl they tortured and raped, they smashed her skull with a concrete block. After raping one woman they stabbed her repeatedly with an ice pick until she feigned death. She was later able to give evidence that eventually led police to the killers.
Police note that the brothers show little remorse for their crimes. Anthony Cook, in particular, appears to be proud of his ability to sneak up on people out of the dark and seems to think his victims got what they deserved. Police investigators think the brothers deliberately chose white victims, but the cases were never treated as hate crimes. The Cook brothers have also never gotten any attention outside the Toledo area, even though they are unusual and significant examples of black serial killers. (Dale Emch, Cooks Admit to 8 Slayings, The Blade (Toledo), April 7, 2000, p. 1. Dale Emch, What Compelled Cooks to Kill? The Blade, April 8, 2000, p. 13.)
Two Filipinas, neither of whom speaks English, have been charged with abusing 96-year-old Mary Mason who was in their care at a nursing home. Inez Areco and Antonia Monta videotaped themselves pushing Miss Mason to the floor and then dragging her across the room naked as they laughed and shouted. In the video, which was turned over to police by a television station that received an anonymous copy, Miss Mason lies motionless and does not resist. Through an interpreter Miss Areco and Miss Monta explained that they made the videotape to document the aggressive behavior of their aged patient. (Women Arrested After Dragging, Yelling and Laughing at 96-Year-Old, AP, May 4, 2000.)
In April, anti-immigration Italian parties won resounding victories in regional elections, so badly trouncing their lefty opponents that Prime Minister Massimo D’Alema — a former Communist — offered to resign. The conservative opposition is a coalition of the anti-immigrant Northern League, the neo-fascist National Alliance, and the Freedom Alliance led by former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. The balloting was for 15 of Italy’s 20 regional councils, and conservatives won control of eight. Of particular significance was the victory of neo-fascist Francesco Storace, who became regional president of the Latium region whose capital is Rome. The anti-immigrant right wants to enforce strict immigration quotas, send back illegals, and authorize coastal patrols to open fire on boatloads of illegals. The movement’s success suggests there could be important changes when general elections take place in April, 2001. (Bruce Johnston, Right on Rise Again in Anti-immigrant Italian Poll Victory, Daily Telegraph (London), April 18, 2000.)
Truth Behind Bars
The April issue of Culture Wars has a long article by an inmate about racial tension in Texas prisons. Some excerpts:
I have two Master’s degrees, in theology and humanities, which are mind-opening subjects. Many of my friends were blacks, including my criminal defense attorney, who was a college buddy of mine. But today, because of my prison experiences, I cannot stand being in the presence of blacks. I can’t even listen to my old, favorite Motown music anymore. The barbarous and/or retarded blacks in prison have ruined it for me. The black prison guards who comprise half the staff and who flaunt the dominance of African-American culture in prison and give favored treatment to their ‘brothers’ have ruined it for me. They have ruined my tolerance. They have ruined my open-mindedness. They won’t let me be that way, and moreover, they don’t want me to be that way. I have physical, mental and spiritual scars from defending myself against them, and while I’m lucky in that I haven’t been raped or otherwise lost my manhood it is my opinion that I and my country have been ‘O.J.’-ed.”“[I]n the aftermath of the Byrd murder [the dragging death in Jasper, Texas] I read one commentator’s opinion in which he expressed disappointment that ex-cons could come out of prison with unresolved racial problems ‘despite the racial integration of the prisons.’ Despite? Buddy, do I have news for you! How about because of racial integration? (“John Doe,” Doing Time in Texas: The Truth Behind the Race Murder of James Byrd, Culture Wars, April, 2000, p. 32.)
Who Needs Soldiers?
In 1999 San Francisco dished out money to 213 arts and cultural groups supporting many different public celebrations. Some of the big winners were: Cinco de Mayo Carnival and Parade — $162,500; Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transsexual Pride Celebration — $75,000; Chinese New Year’s Parade — $77,000, and the Gay Men’s Chorus — $49,000. The city gave money to just about every ethnic group: $5,000 for Vietnamese Lunar New Year, $7,000 for the Aloha Festival, $7,500 for the Min Sok Korean festival, $12,000 for Samoan Flag Day (!), $21,000 for Martin Luther King Day, $13,000 for Juneteenth, $10,000 for the Mexican holiday El Grito, $27,000 for the American Indian Festival, $40,000 for the Japanese Cherry Blossom Parade, etc. Veterans are incensed that they get only $1,000 from the city to celebrate Memorial Day, especially since no other group gets less than $5,000. (Jonathan Curiel, Veterans Say S.F. is Unfairly Stingy on Memorial Day Events, San Francisco Chron-icle, May 27, 2000, p. 1 and other Internet sources.)
Proud of His Bloodline
George W. Bush, has a brother, Jeb, who is the governor of Florida and married to a Mexican-born woman named Columba. Jeb and Columba have a mixed-race son named George P. Bush, who appears in a television campaign ad for his uncle, in which he says:
I’m a young Latino in the United States and very proud of my bloodline. I have an uncle that is running for president because he believes in the same thing: opportunity for everyone, for every Latino. His name, same as mine: George Bush. (Bill Whitaker, Bush Familia Values, CBSNews.com, undated, seen June 12, 2000.)
On the night of Halloween, 1998, fire tore through a discotheque in Göteborg, Sweden, patronized almost exclusively by immigrants, of whom about 60 died. The cry taken up by the Swedish and international press was “This is a racist crime!” And so it was that the various immigrant communities, as richly endowed as they are here and with free access to the media, demanded the right to oversee the investigation. That lengthy process has finally come to an end and who are the accused? Four Iranians who were angry at being turned away at the door. In fact, the club was already in violation with 400 customers on the premises instead of the 150 permitted by Swedish law. But it turns out to have been a “racist” crime after all: the Iranians were turned away by Turks. “Right-wing extremists” therefore had nothing to do with this crime but that did not prevent an intense campaign of mudslinging, thousands of interrogations, and an updating of the files on skinheads, survivalists, and even perfectly legal political parties like Bevara Sveriji Svenkt (Keep Sweden Swedish), all of which groups were considerably shaken up. (Translated from: The Racist Killers Were Iranians, Rivarol, May 26, 2000, p. 10. Address: 1, rue d’Haute-ville, 75010 Paris, France.)
Gypsies Not Wanted
Parents in the Spanish town of Barakaldo, near Bilbao, tried to shut down the Colegio San Juan after they learned three Gypsy children had been enrolled. They have kept as many as 600 children out of classes, and on May 11 got into scuffles with the police as they tried to keep teachers from entering the school. The authorities and Gypsy leaders accuse the parents of racism. (Spain School Gypsy Boycott Sparks Racism Charge, Reuters, May 12, 2000.)
The Greeks have gone the Spaniards one better. The town of Nea Kios, 60 miles southwest of Athens, has passed an ordinance to keep Gypsies out completely. “We state that we do not desire the presence, passage and residence of Gypsies in our municipality,” says the recently-posted public notice. It goes on to urge shopkeepers to refuse service to Gypsies and offers to buy back any land on the town’s outskirts now owned by Gypsies. For years, residents have accused Gypsies of theft, violence and reckless driving, but tensions came to a head when an argument over a parking space led to blows.
Until a decade ago Greece was almost entirely homogeneous but ten percent of the population are now foreigners, mostly from Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Many Greeks are unhappy with the influx, and the Greek Orthodox Church says the country’s cultural and religious identities are under threat. Last year a town in northern Greece imposed a dusk-to-dawn ban on all foreigners. (Elena Becatoros, Greek Town Rules: Gypsies Not Wanted, AP, May 31, 2000.)
“Commit Your Crimes in America”
Agua Prieta is a Mexican border town that is a popular jumping-off point for illegal entry into the United States. Last year, an estimated two million Mexicans crossed into Arizona from Agua Prieta, and many of them came right back when the US Border Patrol caught them. The town of 130,000 doesn’t like the hundreds of thousands of criminal drifters La Migra dumps on its doorstep, and has decided to teach them how to stay in the United States. It offers free advice on how to apply for a court hearing if they are caught, and has started advertising this service in newspapers and on radio. A court hearing automatically means a lengthy stay in the United States, and if even a fraction of the Agua Prieta illegals demanded hearings the US system would be swamped and break down. INS spokesman Rob Daniels said “communication” will solve the problem. (Mexican Town Declares War on U.S., FoxNews.com, May 30, 2000.)
Israel has recently suffered a dramatic loss of wildlife. Six years ago, there were 6,000 gazelle in the southern Golan but now there are only 500. Wolves and birds have been disappearing, too. Conservationists have finally found the cause: Thai farm workers who trap and eat anything that moves. Israeli farmers used to hire Palestinian labor but in the mid-1990s there was so much unrest the government closed off the Occupied Territories and imported 20,000 Thais to pick avocados and pack oranges. Yair Sharon, a national parks wildlife inspector says, “If you want nature conservation, you cannot have Thai workers.” (Alan Philps, Israel Bans Hunting as Guest Workers’ Tastes Run Wild, Telegraph (London), April 26, 2000.)
|LETTERS FROM READERS|
Sir — Jared Taylor missed the mark completely in his article on Elian Gonzalez in the June issue. One would think that since the liberal Washington Establishment was going against one of its usual constituencies (the Cuban community), Mr. Taylor would realize that racial consciousness had little if anything to do with what is happening. By narrowly focusing on what is at most a side issue, he fails to see the big picture.
The globalists in Washington don’t give a hoot about Elian, and are probably delighted that conservatives like Mr. Taylor focus on the race issue. They are playing this out to further their globalist ambitions. In order to keep moving incrementally towards a global government, they must continue to appease comrade Fidel. To allow Elian Gonzalez to stay here would be a slap in the face to the old bearded one. Their globalist ambitions are so strong they are willing to risk alienating one of their strongest voting blocks.
Mr. Taylor also fails to realize the dangers in letting Reno and company get away with the enormous abuse of federal power their early-morning raid represents. Just because it was a Cuban household the feds smashed their way into does not make it any more acceptable to true constitutionalists.
Pat Sellers, Coatesville, Pa.
Sir — George Kimble is right to describe Robert Mugabe as “a bit of a primitive after all.” Not only is he responsible for killing rival black tribes-people, he is also a corrupt buffoon who knows no shame. About a year ago, the Zimbabwean government held a national lottery with a grand prize worth millions of dollars. The whole nation waited breathlessly to learn that the lucky winner was . . . Robert Mugabe.
Joe Kowalski, North Haven, Conn.
Sir — I was pleasantly surprised to hear Jared Taylor on the Jason Lewis Show in St. Paul, Minnesota on May 18th. I can’t tell you how encouraged I was to hear his common sense publicly aired over the radio. Thank you for your devotion to the cause of white resurgence and renaissance.
R.C. Hanning, Minnetonka, Minn.
Sir — I’m afraid Arch Stanton has completely missed the point in his attempt in the June issue to “write off” Melinda Jelliby and her racialist liberals. His point is that because liberals are committed to big government they will resort to anything, including mass importation of non-white workers, to keep the programs going. That, of course, is precisely what a racialist liberal would not do — because he understands the racial problem. The racially conscious liberal would be for big government, all right, but of, by, and for whites. There may not be many such people, but when we find them let us welcome and encourage them.
Mr. Stanton also makes the mistake of thinking that liberals like non-white immigration because of all the social problems it brings, since the more social problems there are, the more easily they can justify their programs. Give them a little credit! Not every liberal is cynically trying to make problems worse so he can get more money for the brand of uplift in which he specializes. After all, only a few liberals actually make a living in the welfare business. Most are ordinary voters and taxpayers, who genuinely think government can cure social problems. There is no need to insult them by accusing them of wanting problems to get worse so they can pay more taxes to try to solve them.
Finally, Mr. Stanton says ordinary Americans are so enamored of middle-class entitlements that they will accept non-white immigration if that is what it takes to keep government solvent. This is a mistaken view on two counts. First, non-white immigrants take back in bilingual education, prison costs, Medicaid, other handouts, social fragmentation, etc., everything they may contribute to social security. As Miss Jelliby pointed out in her original article, Third-World countries don’t have social welfare because they can’t sustain the infrastructure it requires. More Guatemalans and Hmong are not going to pay America’s bills despite their high birth-rates. They are a big net loss. They become America’s bills.
Second, ordinary Americans — liberal and conservative — have made it clear in virtually every opinion poll that they don’t want more immigration. Support for immigration comes from a small, unrepresentative part of the population and the fact that it continues does not at all prove ordinary Americans think little brown people are going to look after them when they are old. Current media propaganda tries to foster that illusion, but no one is falling for it.
Fred Hooper, Mussel Shoals, Ala.
AR is looking for an assistant editor to work in our Virginia office. The ideal candidate writes well, has a strong commitment to what we stand for, understands computers, and knows something about running an office.
Please send your resume to:
2717 Clarkes Landing