American Renaissance, July 2007
Finally Out of the Closet
On May 24, the Alabama legislature followed the lead of Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina and apologized for slavery. The House took an unrecorded voice vote, but the Senate split perfectly along party lines, with 20 Democrats voting to grovel and eight Republicans voting not to. Republican governor Bob Riley signed the bill on May 31.
The language of the apology is about as purple as anything ever to emerge from an American state house. Here we learn why Alabama must apologize:
[T]he perpetual pain, distrust, and bitterness of many African-Americans could be assuaged and the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers would be affirmed, and great strides toward unifying all Alabamians and inspiring the nation to acquiesce might be accomplished, if on the eve of the commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the first permanent English settlement in the New World, the state acknowledged and atoned for its pivotal role in the slavery of Africans.
Needless to say, blacks continue to suffer horribly:
[T]he vestiges of slavery are ever before African-American citizens, from the overt racism of hate groups to the subtle racism encountered when requesting health care, transacting business, buying a home, seeking quality public education and college admission, and enduring pretextual traffic stops and other indignities . . .
The psychological wounds go deep:
[E]ven in the decades after the Civil Rights Movement, African-Americans have found the struggle to overcome the bitter legacy of slavery long and arduous, and for many African-Americans the scars left behind are unbearable, haunting their psyches and clouding their vision of the future . . .
But there is something each of us can do:
[W]e encourage the remembrance and teaching about the history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and modern day slavery, to ensure that these tragedies will neither be forgotten nor repeated.
This is gratifying for blacks who seem to think everyone had forgotten all about slavery until the resolution came along. Mary Moore, who sponsored the bill in the House, said, “The issue of slavery and its impact on the country had been kept in the closet until a few Southern states said, ‘We want to take it out of the closet.’”
Hank Sanders, a black senator from Selma who sponsored the Senate resolution, is happy, too. “An apology goes a long way,” he says. “Some of us can’t begin to heal until we have an apology. Some of us can’t move into reconciliation until we have an apology.”
Some people fear that instead of rapid healing and joyous reconciliation, there will be demands for reparations. “What I am is somebody who hates to see lawyers take advantage of the General Fund of the state of Alabama and suck it like a leech,” says Sen. Charles Bishop, who voted against the resolution.
Just to be on the safe side, at the end of what must be one of the most abjectly self-abasing resolutions ever passed by a state house, there is a line of fine print: “That it is the intent of the Legislature that this resolution shall not be used in, or be the basis of, any type of litigation.” [Phillip Rawls, Alabama Governor Signs Resolution Apologizing for Slavery, AP, May 31, 2007. Phillip Rawls, Alabama House, Senate, OK Slavery Apologies, AP, April 25, 2007.]
As we go to press, the United States Senate is mulling over S. 1348, the “Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007,” otherwise known as comprehensive immigration reform. Crafted in secret by a cabal of White House officials and a dozen senators, including Edward Kennedy, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Kyl, the bill would grant immediate “provisional legal status” — in effect, amnesty — to at least 12 million illegal aliens, mainly Mexicans. Because no one really knows how many illegals there are, the number could be much higher. When Congress granted amnesty in 1986, it expected one million applicants. At last count the number of people “regularized” was more than three times that number.
The current bill is supposed to be a compromise between amnesty and tough immigration enforcement. Amnesty for all illegals in the United States since before January 1, 2007 and a “guest worker” program for up to 400,000 foreigners a year is supposed to be balanced by tighter border security and an end to “family reunification.” Since 1965, legal immigration has been easiest for relatives of citizen and permanent residents. The new rules would adopt a Canadian-style points system that favors people with qualifications — but only after a delay of eight years that would let in untold numbers of unskilled “family” members.
There are so many things wrong with this bill it is hard to know where to begin, and AR will offer a detailed analysis in an upcoming issue. Besides the obviously offensive moral capitulation of amnesty, the bill will be expensive — Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation puts the lifetime costs of amnesty at more than $2 trillion, a figure based on the estimate that each low-skilled immigrant household costs taxpayers $19,588 per year.
Illegals do have to go through a bureaucratic shuffle to get their so-called “Z visa,” and there is supposed to be a background check to weed out criminals, but these procedures will be full of loopholes. The bill does not eliminate birth-right citizenship, which means that any tourist or illegal who gives birth on US soil becomes the mother of a citizen. The bill does nothing to encourage assimilation, and offers no reason to think there will not be another illegal immigrant crisis 20 years from now.
The additional enforcement measures are toothless, and the bill mandates completion of only about half of the 700-mile border fence Congress already approved. In any case, debate about new “laws” is pure fantasy. The United States cannot enforce the laws it already has; there is nothing to suggest that a single provision of the Senate bill will be enforced. To the extent that illegals understand the bill, the general reaction seems to be “Why bother?” Many will ignore the amnesty procedure, and stay right where they are, with less fear than ever of being deported.
S. 1348 is a huge step towards the destruction of America. Whites are already expected to be a minority before mid-century, and we will see that day arrive much sooner if this bill becomes law. Fortunately, the House of Representatives, which has slightly more sense, will not pass this wretched law in its current state. [John Fonte, Comprehensively Bad, National Review, May 23, 2007. Robert Rector and Christine Kim, The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer, Heritage Foundation, May 22, 2007.]
According to the Census Bureau, the US population officially topped the 300 million mark on Oct. 17, 2006. Of these 300 million, 100.7 million — slightly more than a third — are non-white. “To put this into perspective,” says Census Bureau Director Louis Kincannon, “there are more minorities in this country today than there were people in the United States in 1910 [when the population was 92.2 million]. In fact, the minority population in the US is larger than the total population of all but 11 countries.”
Twenty-one percent of the nation’s non-whites — 20.7 million — live in California, and another 12 percent — 12.2 million — live in Texas. Hispanics are the single largest minority group, at 44.3 million or 14.8 percent of the total. Hispanics made up nearly half of the total population growth of 2.9 million between July 1, 2005, and July 1, 2006. Hispanics are young, with a median age of 27.4 compared to 36.4 for the population as a whole. About a third of Hispanics are under 18, compared with one quarter of the total.
Blacks have passed the 40 million mark for the first time, and Asians are closing in on 15 million. There are now a reported 198.7 million non-Hispanic whites in the United States, but this figure includes many — Arabs, Persians, etc. — whom only the Census Bureau thinks are white.
Non-whites are already majorities in four states — Hawaii at 75 percent; New Mexico and California, 57 percent each; Texas, 52 percent — and the District of Columbia, 68 percent. [Minority Population Tops 100 Million, Infozine.com, May 20, 2007.]
Soon to be Half
In 1965, before the disastrous Immigration and Nationality Act of that year whites were 88 percent of the US population, and those whites were proper Europeans. By 1990, the white population had fallen to 76 percent, and it now stands at just 66.4 percent. From 2005 to 2006, whites increased by just 0.26 percent, while non-whites grew by 2.42 percent. At these rates, non-whites will become a majority in 2038.
Whites are being squeezed by both immigration and differential birth rates. The white fertility rate of 1.847 is 12 percent below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. Blacks have a fertility rate of 2.02 while the figure for Hispanics is 2.82. Births to white women have already started to decline in absolute terms: There were 28,000 fewer white babies in 2006 than 2005. In 2006, only 54.1 percent of all births were to white women. If current trends continue, in 2011 — just four years from now — more than half of the children born in the US will be non-white, and by 2021, 60 percent will be non-white. [Edwin S. Rubenstein, The Next Big Headline: Most Births Minority in 2011, VDARE.com, May 24, 2007.]
Blacks have been a majority in Atlanta since the 1970s but that may be about to change. As more blacks move to the suburbs, lured by cheaper housing and better schools, their share of the population has fallen to less than 60 percent, and may soon drop below half. Mayor Shirley Franklin worries blacks will lose political power. “It’s not spoken about much, but there are concerns that we will lose, as African-Americans, our political base . . . We are more diverse, but less black and white than we were 30 years ago.” Mayor Franklin doesn’t seem happy about the more “diverse” Atlanta. “African-Americans of the city of Atlanta have been among the most progressive on issues of inclusion of anyone,” she says. “[W]e are concerned that the loss of political power might undermine the progression of these social policies.”
Mayor Adrian Fenty of Washington is also worried his city may lose its black majority. He wants more cheap government housing, and worries that without it, only the rich will be able to live in Washington. [David Ho, Black Atlantans May Lose Power, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 2, 2007.]
Britain, like America, has illegal immigrants, though only an estimated 500,000 compared to our 12 to 20 million. As in America, some people are pushing amnesty. They say that once Britain introduces national ID cards, it will be easy to spot illegals, but at a cost of £11,000 each, deportation is too expensive. Candidates for the post of deputy to incoming PM Gordon Brown all favor amnesty, despite the fact that the Home Office rejected it last year. Their arguments are familiar: illegals are hard-working, and amnesty is the “right” thing to do. But unlike in the United States, some senior officials oppose amnesty. Labour Party chairman Hazel Blears and International Development Secretary Hilary Benn point out that it would only encourage more illegal immigration.
Amnesty-peddlers are looking over their shoulders at the increasingly-popular British National Party (BNP). Jon Cruddas, a Labour MP who hopes to become Mr. Brown’s number two, says the BNP will win some support with its argument that it is pointless to have a national ID card if people who don’t have one can stay anyway. He believes, however, that this would be only a temporary advantage, because amnestied illegals will swell the ranks of those who will never vote for a nationalist party. [Brendan Carlin, Candidates Pressure Brown Over Immigrants, Telegraph (London), June 2, 2007.]
Doctors and Diversity
Thirty years ago, America’s 125 medical schools started preferences for women, and now only half of new doctors are men. Medical schools have also been recruiting non-whites, and the percentage of white medical school graduates has dropped from 85 percent in 1980 to 64 percent in 2004. Asians have gone from three percent to 20 percent in the same period, with Indians and Chinese the two biggest Asian ethnic groups. Many of the current crop of students are first- and second-generation immigrants. “We are seeing more and more kids of foreign-born parents, especially in the last eight to 10 years,” says Dr. Milford M. Foxwell, dean of admissions at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, where one fifth of the students are Asian.
Many black medical students are African. Lauree Thomas, who is associate dean for admissions at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, says 20 to 30 percent of her school’s applicants are first- or second-generation Nigerians, and estimates that half of all black applicants have recent ties to Africa. Many American blacks resent this. Dr. Albert Morris, Jr., president of the mostly-black National Medical Association says, “[W]e want to make sure that those of us who have helped open the doors [of medical school to blacks] get to share in the bounty.”
Non-white doctors have a political axe to grind. According to a 2004 study, they are more likely than whites to think American doctors often “treat people unfairly based on race, ethnicity, insurance status, income or ability to speak English.” [David Brown, At Med Schools, a New Degree of Diversity, Washington Post, June 1, 2007.]
“Japan has no official immigration policy like those of the US or Australia,” explains Hidenori Sakanaka, head of the Japan Immigration Policy Institute. “The policy has been to keep people out if they intend to stay permanently.” That policy has been effective. Only 1.6 percent of Japan’s 128 million people are foreigners, and half of them were born in Japan.
Unfortunately, Japan may be about to abandon its sensible policy. The Japanese population started declining in 2005, and the government fears a decline of as much as 25 percent by 2050. In May, the government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced it would double the number of foreign students. Deputy foreign minister Mitoji Yabunaka sounded almost like Ben Wattenberg when he announced that Japan will let in more workers, too. “We’re ready to make Japan as open as possible,” he says. “Clearly there’s the need for more immigration. We’re faced with all sorts of demographic questions.”
However, even Mr. Yabunaka understands the need for caution. “I don’t know if it’s what you’d call cultural resistance, but since this is new, there are a lot of things that have to be pondered and discussed,” he explained. “Naturally people are concerned about safety.” [Jason Clenfield, Japan Will Allow More Immigration, Official Says, Bloomberg News, May 23, 2007.]
According to a new study, parents of mixed-race children put more time and effort into child-rearing than do parents who are of the same race. The study finds that biracial children are more likely to have a home computer, go to private school, participate in activities outside school, and go to zoos and libraries. This difference is reportedly most pronounced when one parent is white and the other is Asian — the children get more attention than when parents are both white or both Asian.
Study co-author Brian Powell of Indiana University thinks this is because interracial couples are trying to help their children overcome prejudice. “They face challenges in being a couple,” he says. “They’re aware of the challenges their children will be facing. In turn, they try to compensate for this.”
The study found that the rule of greater child-rearing effort does not hold true for black men who have children with white women. These couples put even less effort into child-rearing than black parents do. The authors speculate that black father/white mother couples get less support from extended families (though, by the theory that is supposed to explain the behavior of white/Asian couples, it would be reason to devote even greater efforts to rearing mulattos). Overall, the study found that non-white man/white women couples face the greatest “social challenges.” The research does not appear to have looked into whether white women who have children with black men show unusual sociological characteristics. [Robin Lloyd, Interracial Couples Invest More in Kids, LiveScience.com, April 23, 2007.]
For years, the official view in Australian schools has been that the founding of their country and the European influence on Aborigines were one long record of horror. Common sense has been making a comeback, however, and in 1993, historian Geoffrey Blainey started calling the official line the “black armband view of history.” John Howard even picked up the phrase in his successful 1996 campaign for prime minister. Mr. Howard’s government is now writing a new curriculum for Australian history.
It can’t come soon enough for whites who refuse to feel guilty. Louise Zarmati of the New South Wales History Teachers Association told an Australian Senate panel in May that her students are “not prepared to wear the guilt.” As she explained further: “I think it sparks a lot of racism; it certainly did in my classroom. It makes it an unpleasant learning experience. They don’t really enjoy it and feel forced to do it; they don’t like the politics all that much.” [Justine Ferrari, Students Resent ‘Guilt’ of History, News.com.au, May 18, 2007.]
After defendants in race discrimination lawsuits won big settlements from major companies like Coca-Cola and Texaco, most US corporations spent millions on diversity training programs. They hoped this would boost the number of women and non-white managers, and also protect them from lawsuits, but according to a new study, the money was wasted. Not only does diversity training not increase the number of non-whites, it does not stop lawsuits. “I don’t know of a single case where courts gave credit for diversity training,” says study co-author Frank Dobbin of Harvard. “Are these efforts worth it? In the case of diversity training, the answer is no.” The authors have several theories why diversity training doesn’t work: it may create a backlash, it may actually provoke bias, or prejudices may be so deep they cannot be extirpated in a few training sessions.
Does this mean the end of the diversity fetish? No. The study says the best way for a company to “increase diversity” is to appoint a person or a committee whose sole responsibility is to boost the number of non-whites and women — and then demand results. This is how GE, for example, raised the percentage of its senior executives who are non-white, women, or foreigners from 29 percent in 2000 to 40 percent by 2005. [Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, Employee Diversity Training Doesn’t Work, Time, April 26, 2007.]
Playing the Race Card
Black Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama apparently thinks New Orleans blacks may be justified in rioting, just as Los Angeles blacks did in 1992 over the Rodney King verdict. Speaking before an audience of nearly 8,000 at historically black Hampton University in Virginia on June 5, Sen. Obama compared the riots that left 55 dead to the black anger over how President Bush handled Hurricane Katrina.
He said the fury of Los Angeles is boiling away all the time. “Those ‘quiet riots’ that take place every day are born from the same place as the fires and the destruction and the police decked out in riot gear and the deaths,” he said to a standing ovation. “Despair takes hold and young people all across this country look at the way the world is and believe that things are never going to get any better,” he added. [Bob Lewis, Obama Warns of ‘Quiet Riot’ Among Blacks, AP, June 5, 2007.]
Teaching for Tomorrow
British students used to have to study a European language like French or German between the ages of 11 and 14, but they can now study Urdu, Arabic or Mandarin Chinese instead. Sir Cyril Taylor, head of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, thinks Chinese is “the language of tomorrow” and should replace European languages. Mandarin is already compulsory at Brighton College, which takes children from ages three to 18. [Richard Garner, Schools Import China’s Teachers for Lessons in ‘Language of Tomorrow,’ Independent (London), May 24, 2007.]