The War Between the Whites

Miami Herald, April 30, 2011

{snip}

For all our legitimate concern about racial tensions in this country, it’s easy to forget that the deepest and most fundamental social fault line in the nation–the one that provoked the nation’s bloodiest war–is between two halves of white America.

Sure, in our increasingly diverse society, we face all sorts of tensions among racial, ethnic and religious groups. Less than half a century ago, we endured bloody fights over racial equality. More recently, racially tinged battles over immigration have captured headlines.

But today, more and more Americans tell pollsters that racial stresses are subsiding and that it’s the battle between two sides of white America–what University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter has labeled traditionalists and progressives–that has taken center stage.

{snip}

Instead, the tension in American society over the last quarter of a century has increased over cultural issues, such as abortion, the role of religion in public life and gun control. The fever charts on these issues generally track divisions among white Americans. Although nonwhites may take sides in the debates, they’re generally not on the front lines.

These issues have divided us politically and added to concerns that polarization and partisanship are tearing the nation apart. Our mixed-race president notwithstanding, the political standard-bearers for both sides in these fights are generally white. That makes sense, because 96 percent of U.S. senators are white, as are 81 percent of House members.

{snip}

In his new book, Bloodlust: On the Roots of Violence from Cain and Abel to the Present, UCLA historian Russell Jacoby suggests that social scientists’ fixation on how people treat the “other”–the stranger, those we perceive as different and dangerous–is overblown. The truth, he writes, “is more unsettling. It is not so much the unknown that threatens us but the known. We disdain and attack our brothers–our kin, our acquaintances, our neighbors–whom we know well, perhaps too well.”

{snip}

U.S. crime statistics certainly bear this out. According to a 2010 report from the Department of Justice, most murders are intraracial. From 1976 to 2005, 86 percent of white victims were killed by whites; 94 percent of black victims were killed by blacks. Similarly, despite all the fear of strangers that adults instill in children, 90 percent of child abuse is perpetrated by family or friends of family. Almost three-quarters of rape victims know or have met their assailant.

{snip}

In the coming months, as we commemorate the 150th anniversary of one after another of the signal events of the Civil War, we would do well to reboot our sense of America’s tragedy. Racism may indeed be this nation’s “original sin,” but sameness, not diversity, is what poses the single biggest threat to social cohesion.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • AmericaFirst

    The stats may be true when it comes to murder (although at least 145 of whites are NOT killed by other whites, and I’ll bet that some Hispanics are lumped in as “white), but the statistics for rape show an horrendous interracial component, with 35,000-40,000 white victims of black rapes per year.

  • Robert

    “In his new book, Bloodlust: On the Roots of Violence from Cain and Abel to the Present, UCLA historian Russell Jacoby suggests that social scientists’ fixation on how people treat the “other”—the stranger, those we perceive as different and dangerous—is overblown.”

    This tells you that your perceptions of reality are not valid. Certainly, It`s a technology piece for dogmatic diversity. I`ll put the book on my summer reading list and disect it`s epistemological method.

    Additionally, I really question those crime statistics.

  • GetBackJack

    Our most dangerous enemy looks just like us — a far too frequent reality. But I think politicians and the media have both been feeding on this ‘known’ for a very long time. The “us versus them” is now in full bloom and only another civil war will decide a victor. And, if we are not careful, the victor will usher in world government.

    Divide and conquer has never been truer!

  • Tim in Indiana

    But today, more and more Americans tell pollsters that racial stresses are subsiding and that it’s the battle between two sides of white America—what University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter has labeled traditionalists and progressives—that has taken center stage.

    This piece shows just how disconnected from reality these people are. This author and those he quotes should live in Detroit, Gary Indiana, the South Side of Chicago, or any one of a hundred other racially polarized areas in this country and then tell me that “racial stresses are subsiding.”

    If they appear to be, it’s only because whites have separated themselves from other races so thoroughly that they have relatively little contact with them.

    All we’ve done is taken serious problems and swept them under the rug in hopes that they will eventually go away by themselves. This has lulled us into a false sense of complacency about issues like immigration that will eventually go off like a powder keg.

  • Awakened

    Sameness is the problem? What about the 30,000+ rapes of White women by Black men and the less than 10 rapes of Black women by White men every year? What about all the muggings? White people aren’t mugged by other Whites, they’re mugged by Blacks and non-Whites.

  • Anonymous

    “But today, more and more Americans tell pollsters that racial stresses are subsiding and that it’s the battle between two sides of white America—what University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter has labeled traditionalists and progressives—that has taken center stage.”

    —————————————————————-

    More LIES.

    —————————————————————-

    U.S. crime statistics certainly bear this out. According to a 2010 report from the Department of Justice, most murders are intraracial. From 1976 to 2005, 86 percent of white victims were killed by whites; 94 percent of black victims were killed by blacks. Similarly, despite all the fear of strangers that adults instill in children, 90 percent of child abuse is perpetrated by family or friends of family. Almost three-quarters of rape victims know or have met their assailant.

    —————————————————————-

    More LIES from the DOJ! Oh and this is a whopper.

    “Almost three-quarters of rape victims know or have met their assailant.”

    ————————————————————-

    Yeah, like White college women or young White girls who only know the rapist (mostly blacks)because they are at the same school? Like when blacks break in and rape White women in their homes? Did those women “know or have met” their rapist?

  • Anonymous

    Racism may indeed be this nation’s “original sin,” but sameness, not diversity, is what poses the single biggest threat to social cohesion.

    —————————————————————–

    Racism is the “original sin”? Since when? I don’t recall “racism” even mentioned in the Bible or in the Ten Commandments.

    Don’t ya love it when these idiots make up things as they go?

    —————————————————————

    ” but sameness, not diversity, is what poses the single biggest threat to social cohesion.”

    Really? You sure can’t prove that by any FACTS or reality, now can you? Yeah, I see Whites moving into the ghettos and barrios just to enrich themselves of all that great diversity, don’t you?

    This moron uses the Civil War as how Whites fight each other! Yeah, when both sides are LIED to, much as it is today. That war was set up by the enemy within and most of us know it.

  • E Pluribus Pluribus

    Miami Herald: “…sameness, not diversity, is what poses the single biggest threat to social cohesion.”

    The editorialist is obviously innocent of any knowledge of the findings of Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam:

    “A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists. His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbor to the mayor …” (Financial Times, Oct. 8, 2006)

    Nor is he acquainted with John Stewart Mill:

    “Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist. (On Representative Government,1861)

    Whites fought other whites in wars past because only other whites were near enough and only other whites were capable of mounting a threat and competing for scarce resources. With the races much more intermingled today and with the age of racial preferences upon us, it won’t only be other whites that will be perceived as a potential threat, but nearby non-whites as well.

  • Stealthmodeon

    “86 percent of white victims were killed by whites….” What is the breakdown of this into Hispanic white and European white?

  • Question Diversity

    Instead, the tension in American society over the last quarter of a century has increased over cultural issues, such as abortion, the role of religion in public life and gun control.

    I tend to think that the rows relating to those issues are actually diminishing, precisely because of all this “diversity” which is supposed to be so wonderful. Too, two of those three issues listed above have racial undertones, (abortion, gun control), and even the role of religion in public life has an element of a racial double standard (Democrat campaigns at a black church, Republican campaigns at a white conservative fundagelical church, guess which church is going to get the IRS letter in the mail).

    This was in the very same newspaper that ran that genius op-ed from that genius black woman who outed our dastardly Jim Crow conspiracy to keep black and Hispanics and Asians from singing kumbaya together inside a voting booth (see AR, yesterday)

  • Carl

    “From 1976 to 2005, 86 percent of white victims were killed by whites; 94 percent of black victims were killed by blacks.”

    Note the lie they are trying to tell here. In reality, white people are the majority, so even if the killers of white people were chosen randomly from the population in which the white people lived, you would expect to randomly get a white killer more than 86% of the time. This does not indicate that white people face more danger from other white people.

    Notice how they don’t give the percentages from the killer’s point of view, which would tell a different story.

  • Anonymous

    Quick, split up the whites! We can’t be held to blame for being against other races this week so we must be against each other!

    It’s getting to the point where either I’ve heard all the polarizing excuses the left can come up with or they must think we are truly too stupid to see the agitprop for what it is.

    Sad fact is that we have managed to avoid ‘intraracial’ violence by generally living our own lives in our own space.

    OTOH, Blacks and Hispanics are like uranium. Get too much critical mass together and they will explode for any or no reason.

    Of course, so long as they are minorities and have no real voice in the running of the country, nobody will pay any attention to their enormous proclivity for actual vice rhetorical and philosophic conflicts and so the notion that we are all alone in the hate-others-as-self crowd is perpetuated by this kind of claptrap.

    Time to shoot the old writers and hire new!

  • Bill R

    This country is polarized for one simple reason, and it has NOTHING to do with the “original sin” of slavery. It does have a similar basis though, as to the war between the states. Let me capsulize it thusly: you have the “clingers” who cling to “their guns” (The Constitutional Republic) and their “religion” ( God and a sense of morality of the old beliefs) and then you have those who don’t. Those who do “cling” merely ask that they be allowed to NOT be forced to give up their Constitutional rights to guns, their choice of religion, and a common morality – but don’t try to force the “non-clingers” into going to church, or owning guns, or adopting a Taliban type forced morality. On the other hand, the “non-clingers” ARE trying to force the “clingers” to give up their guns (abolish the 2nd Amendment), stifle all expression of their faith in all venues (abolish the 1st Amendment) and replace the Constitutional Republic with a mob ruled “democracy”. Similar to the North forcing THEIR tariffs, THEIR lifestyle, THEIR religion, THEIR culture and THEIR liberality toward the black man on an entire segment of the nation whose right to hold their own views of such things (protected by the Constitution with the right to separate if that covenant was broken) by force of arms. The liberals are never content with compromise. They want total control over everybody else’s lives, everybody else’s opinions, and everybody else’s lifestyle. Compromise, to them, is a momentary catching of the breath until the next assault pushing us ever more toward their goal – and that breeds, at some point, hard polarities that may only be resolved through armed resistance and secession of some sort. Free, honorable men will only get pushed so far and compromise their honor and their freedom only so far. Then they stand for no more of it. This bozo, in his column, tries to tell us that this polarity is caused by a LACK of sufficient diversity. He claims it results from not ENOUGH compromise.

    He is, quite clearly, not disillusioned but really just another propagandist for the marxist/socialist anti-white, anti-American, anti-Constitutional lobby who seeks perpetual power through dissolving our Republic, and through flooding our nation with ethnics guaranteed to vote for the marxist nanny state they wish to impose on all of us. The Soviet elites lived in palaces, dachas, and estates while the majority of Soviet citizens lived in concrete boxes of two room apartments in barely cured cement. The elites ate caviar and had no food shortages of lack of luxury items. The masses barely survived and stood in lines for a loaf of bread or 6 ounces of meat.

    There was ONE party and only ONE party. If the liberals and traitors have their say, flooding our country with enough ignorant, third world masses, they will be in power forever. Essentially a one party system. With them as the elites and the rest of us trying to live a subsistence lifestyle while they live large. That is their plan.

    We all know it. But there is a tipping point and we either pull back from that brink, or they force us up to it. We stand at the brink. We go no further. We will NOT be pushed into the abyss. We WILL turn and fight first. At least those few, honorable, free men who remember what this country was 50 years ago, and what we have lost already.

  • Calling Gloria

    This article is the biggest load of garbage that makes no point. The author is looking at history in one place over a limited amount of time, and then tries to make an argument against “sameness,” and then as if only American Whites disagree among each other while other races look on in amazement. For his claiming to be a sociologist, I think it is bizzare that he uses the racial make-up of Congress to explain discord in the United States. “Polarization and partisanship” were barely issues in this country until “diversity” meant a tug-of-war for votes.

    I can do the same in reverse by making a point that cooperation between similar people created great nations, wealth and lasting civilizations. For instance, cathedral building in Europe in the Middle Ages or the entire European Renaissance.

    Even during the Thirty Years War, White Europeans were fighting against the only difference then known among themselves and that was nationality, which to them at that time may as well have been racial difference. Europeans were, and in many ways still are, very dissimilar.

    The “sameness” of people quickly rebuilt Galveston Island after the devastating hurricane of 1900. “Diversity” is still taking forever to restore some areas hit by Katrina in 2005.

    The US has never been a very effective “petrie dish” to make sweeping social theories. Northerners and Southerners in antebellum times had so many cultural differences between them that there was hardly any “sameness” since colonial times, despite being of the same race.

    Even worse, this author’s convoluted theory is just a lot of mire for “familiararity breeds contempt.”

    Ignorant libs would read this ridiculous Miami Herald article and consider it scholarship.

  • Anonymous

    I agree that whites greatest threats are other whites. This isn’t because of ‘sameness’ as the author claims. Whites have the most to fear from other whites who are different from them, whites who believe differently than them. Or put another way, whites have the most to fear from the mass of white people who also show deference towards people of color (at the expense of whites) just as all people of color are trained to do also.

  • TomSwift

    There is a limited amount of truth here: our biggest enemies have always been whites.

    However the wars/divisions between whites have only been “worse” because the other side is able to mount a defense. The European conquest of America/Africa was relatively bloodless (at least for whites) because our weapons were 5 centuries more advanced than theirs.

  • Anonymous

    Tradition dictates that whites are “the bad guys” by default. Whites not affected by diversity tend to believe in diversity and therefore trash their own race. It’s easier to do and there’s no consequence.

  • WNY Lawyer

    Sameness? If you are white and insane, then “sameness” may be a problem. If you have an ethnic identity, which the overwhelming majority of individuals in my area (white, black and Hispanic) possess, then a person has all of pride, dignity and uniqueness. “Diversity” is more of a means of keeping an empire feeling connected, vastly different groups who would naturally avoid or even attack each other’s groups are kept under one government via political / social and economic control. Essentially the United States should be viewed as a growing powder keg; one that could easily ignite should the banking / economic system collapse. Not only ethnic/racial differences, but vastly different moral / religious values (or the lack thereof) contribute to this atmosphere. America is more of a concept than a place, a concept not unlike an experimental aircraft, one that is very subject to change and sudden failure.

  • Tom in MI

    The writer makes a clever but flawed argument for diversity. It’s true that the Civil War was fought between two large groups of white Americans, but this war probably would not have taken place if there had been no slavery or Africans in America.

    The original thirteen white English speaking colonies were barely able to unite and form a country. If the colonies had been racially and culturally diverse, does the writer really believe they would have united more easily? If some of the colonies had been Asian, African, and Muslim as well as European would they have had an easier time forming a new nation.

    The article also plays fast and loose with statistics. In a similar manner I can “prove” doctors are a menace to society. Ann Arbor MI, for example, has more doctors than Clio MI, yet more people die each year in Ann Arbor than in Clio!

  • Anonymous

    “..the tension in American society over the last quarter of a century has increased over cultural issues, such as abortion, the role of religion in public life and gun control. The fever charts on these issues generally track divisions among white Americans. Although nonwhites may take sides in the debates, they’re generally not on the front lines.”

    ——

    DOES ANY THINKING PERSON REALLY THINK THESE RED HERRING WEDGE ISSUES ARE THE CRUX OF AMERICAN CIVIL STRIFE? AT WORST, THEY ARE SYMPTOMS OF THE IDEOLOGICAL RIFT BETWEEN ERSTWHILE “CONSERVATIVES AND “LIBERALS.”

    They are the ever- revolving demented circus of Lamestream media shams, endlessly brought up agin like corpses, to be paraded around by twits like Anderson Cooper, or Joy Behar, whatever…to keep the eyes of whites OFF THE TARGET!

    That this continually resurfaces if proof the media’s product is not fit to clean our posteriors after a bowel movement.

  • Anonymous

    Either this “journalist is full of unmitigated audacity and lies, or he/ she is a stupendous read this unexamined tripe:

    [ most murders are intraracial. From 1976 to 2005, 86 percent of white victims were killed by whites; 94 percent of black victims were killed by blacks. Similarly, despite all the fear of strangers that adults instill in children, 90 percent of child abuse is perpetrated by family or friends of family. Almost three-quarters of rape victims know or have met their assailant.]

    This like saying the sun is only hot twelve hours out of every day, because the simpleton who claims this, is not aware that the sun is on the OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET, baking that side for the other half of the day.

    Similarly: Blacks mostly rob, beat, rape and murder other blacks, because they mostly live together…you know, the sort of segregation Liberals most engage in…staying away from blacks at all costs mostly shields them from the fruits of blackness. And whites live together, mostly, so they mostly congregate with one another, ergo, that’s who they are most likely to come into conflict with.

    But every child with an IQ of 100 would find this obvious, upon examination.

    The media is a propaganda machine that sells ad space, and collects salaries. No more, no less.

    Truth is not even slightly involved in their business.

  • Anonymous

    When the diversity- driven civil war blows up as whites are brutalized and crushed into a corner, I wonder where snivelling toadies like this “journalist” will hide.

    Who would take them in? If a Latino or black, they have only one safe haven, though it will be a haven of mayhem and inter- group murder extrordinaire. They might as well go to Mexico or Zimbabwe now, to find the fate that awaits them.

    If a Liberal (Marxist) white, there will be no safe haven, for such types will be as defenseless as soft- bodied slugs without a shell, or earthworms flushed out of the ground after a rain; prey to all and sundry, utterly defenseless, crushed where they lie.

    For fomenting such horrors as the war they so seem to want, they will pay the greatest price, and they will pay first, being the weakest.

    They will run the streets screaming and crying, hunted down by the third worlders they worship, or the neocons that no longer have use for them.

    Money will be useless, and no one will let them in. Other Liberals will be cowering in basements, ready meat for the third world horde- which will devour them like hyenas.

    Neocons will either abscond, or employ some sort of illegal military- police units to keep order (squash everybody) , and will likely shoot liberals out of pure spite. In a world of widespread atrocity, the illegal police will hate the weak more than anybody.

    Race realists can just sit back safe and let the scoundrels take each other out. Race Realists are not the aggressors. But we WILL be the survivors, by virtues the other groups never can posses. We will survive by our wits and skills. We need not move against anyone. They will anihilate eachother.

    The only question is, in what year will such toadies meet their fate (the fate they and they alone trigger).

  • Anonymous

    5 — Awakened wrote at 7:52 PM on May 4:

    Sameness is the problem? What about the 30,000+ rapes of White women by Black men and the less than 10 rapes of Black women by White men every year? What about all the muggings? White people aren’t mugged by other Whites, they’re mugged by Blacks and non-Whites.

    ———

    Yeah, and whites don’t hang around in plain sight of hundreds ( and cameras!) and practice the “knockout punch ” game on random black passers – by. As in Denver, once a great city, now a third world cesspit.

    Nor do whites drive around trendy Mexican entertainment spots, and let fly dozens of bullets in mass- gang warfare, indiscriminately killing all and sundry…(again, Denver, civilized to HELL in one decade.)

    But the author? hell, it doesn’t matter…it is a servant of it’s bosses, or a priest of diversity, or both. And the general populace of whites slumbers until catastrophe becomes outright and universal. Then, all this will be an issue.

  • Anonymous

    Here is an ancient Arabic proverb:

    When I am with my brother, we fight each other

    When my brother and I are with our cousins, we fight our cousins.

    When my cousins and I are with our neighbors, we fight our neighbors.

    .

    .

    .

    When my fellow Muslims and I are with the infidels, we fight the infidels.

    Wisdom lost to modern social (psuedo)scientists, concerned mainly with promoting liberalism.

    Another display of ignorance is Hunter’s ideological taxonomy, traditionalists and progressives, in other words liberals and non-liberals. He would assign libertarians, communists and other antagonistic groups to the same set. He also makes no mention of immigration as a polarizing issue, in spite of its being far more polarizing than abortion, religion, or guns. Talk about polarization, these issues except for guns, polarize the non-liberals to the point where they do not and cannot cooperate against their common enemy, the liberals.

    I believe it is this fragmentation and in-fighting among non-liberals that has allowed liberals to triumph.

  • Kenelm Digby

    ‘Most murders are intraracial’ (ie ‘inside any particular race’).

    Now, here we se yet another attempt to fool and lie to the public with the deliberate use of misleading and irrelevant statistics by people who should know better.

    The majority of murders are, in fact, committed by persons who know their victims very well, and arelikely related to their victims.

    Murders by strangers are actually quite rare.

    The fact that 16% of the murders of White were committed by persons of other races (who probably were strangers) is statiscally a very high rate, when compared to the ‘natural’ perponderence of White committed ‘known murderer’ murders.

  • Roy

    Presumably these white academics will now be dashing of to live in black areas so as to avoid the perils of white sameness.

    “From 1976 to 2005, 86 percent of white victims were killed by whites; 94 percent of black victims were killed by blacks.”

    And what are the stats between 2006-2011? Nothing like diluting the statistics with data from 35 years ago when America was whiter. How about looking at specific cities and examining what happens to the white murder rate when the black population goes up.

    If ‘sameness’ is a problem, then clearly more funding needs to be diverted to mostly white areas and away from multi-ethnic zones.

    Alternatively, how about just leaving people alone to live with whomever they like and away from whomever they don’t like?

  • olewhitelady

    Liberals are always complaining that Americans are divided and must come together–but on what terms? Theirs, of course! They make up at most 20% of the population but believe they should set the agenda.

  • berin

    The diversity of thought and ideas within the white people is unmatched in other races. They practice and proudly preach racial unity. There is no equivalent to Chris Matthews (or other fools on MSNBC) in other communities. Freedom of thought and expression are a ‘whites only’ concept.

  • Anonymous

    PLEASE READ

    The Pernicious Nature of Infighting

    I witnessed comrades fighting with each other today. Infighting seems to be a constant theme amongst Whites. So I went to the forest to meditate how this counterproductive conduct negatively affects our struggle to survive in such a hostile world of constant competition with other violent races.

    As I sat down to clear my mind, I focused upon a single leaf in a tall tree. There was a strange movement on the leaf. Lo, ’twas two worms fighting each other on that little leaf. Though tiny, their battle was fierce indeed.

    Distracted, they were right away gobbled up by a hungry bird.

    However, this occurred near the nest of another bird in the same tree. The two birds began instantly fighting. As feathers flew and beaks squawked, a wildcat had crept close enough and leapt upon the two birds. Eaten by the wildcat, the eggs of both bird’s nests were now vulnerable meals waiting to be devoured.

    I watched a jealous wildcat who had cunningly been eying the same treat for hours, begin fighting the other wildcat for the delicious eggs. They fell from the tree to the ground in a fit of claws and hisses.

    Distracted, a wolf killed and ate them both.

    But this was not the wolf’s “territory”. So it was not long before other wolves set upon him and they broke out into a furious fight of blood, fur, and fangs. Soon, it was difficult to tell one wolf from the other, such was their fight.

    In the midst of this wolf on wolf fight, a huge Russian brown bear emerged and slayed these weakened and bloody wolves. Every last one of the wolves was slain by the mighty bear. For they were no match for his brute strength after a deadly fight of their own.

    Lumbering back to his den, the mighty bear was set upon by another huge bruin. Another massive fight in the forest began yet again anew. Amongst members of their own kind, nature provides battle with the most horrific scenes. For hours the two bears fought. They fought good. They fought strong. What started the battle no one can be truly sure. So bloody were the bears, I could no longer tell them apart. But in the end, one bear lay dead and the other lay severely wounded. So wounded was the victor in fact, that the large bear could simply not go on.

    Right away, two lowly worms began eating the bodies of these once mighty beasts…

  • Anonymous

    The stats on murder are misleading.If you looked at urban areas and areas, such as the south where blacks and whites come in contact with each other, the percentage of whites being murdered by blacks is higher.