Multiculturalism and Marxism
An Englishman looks at the
Soviet origins of political correctness.
by Frank Ellis
"For the purposes of everyday life it was no doubt necessary,
or sometimes necessary, to reflect before speaking, but a Party member
called upon to make a political or ethical judgment should be able to spray
forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gun spraying out
No successful society shows a spontaneous tendency
towards multiculturalism or multiracialism. Successful and enduring
societies show a high degree of homogeneity. Those who support multiculturalism
either do not know this or, what is more likely, realize that if they are
to transform Western societies into strictly regulated, racial-feminist
bureaucracies they must first undermine those societies.
– George Orwell, 1984
This transformation is as radical and revolutionary as the project to
establish Communism in the Soviet Union. Just as every aspect of life had
to be brought under political control in order for the commissars to impose
their vision of society, the multiculturalists hope to control and dominate
every aspect of our lives. Unlike the hard tyranny of the Soviets, theirs
is a softer, gentler tyranny but one with which they hope to bind us as
tightly as a prisoner in the Gulag. Today's "political correctness" is
the direct descendent of Communist terror and brainwashing.
Unlike the obviously alien implantation that was Communism, what makes
multiculturalism particularly insidious and difficult to combat is that
it usurps the moral and intellectual infrastructure of the West. Although
it claims to champion the deepest held beliefs of the West, it is in fact
a perversion and systematic undermining of the very idea of the West.
What we call "political correctness" actually dates back to the Soviet
Union of the 1920s (politicheskaya pravil'nost' in Russian), and
was the extension of political control to education, psychiatry, ethics,
and behavior. It was an essential component of the attempt to make sure
all aspects of life were consistent with ideological orthodoxy – which
is the distinctive feature of all totalitarianisms. In the post-Stalin
period, political correctness even meant that dissent was seen as a symptom
of mental illness, for which the only treatment was incarceration.
Stalin: the spiritual forebear.
As Mao Tse-Tung, the Great Helmsman, put it, "Not to have a correct
political orientation is like not having a soul." Mao's little red book
is full of exhortations to follow the correct path of Communist thought,
and by the late 1960s Maoist political correctness was well established
in American universities. The final stage of development, which we are
witnessing now, is the result of cross-fertilization with all the latest
"isms:" anti-racism, feminism, structuralism, and post-modernism, which
now dominate university curricula. The result is a new and virulent strain
of totalitarianism, whose parallels to the Communist era are obvious. Today's
dogmas have led to rigid requirements of language, thought, and behavior,
and violators are treated as if they were mentally unbalanced, just as
Soviet dissidents were.
Whites are like the
even if they are all
innocent they are members
of the class
that is guilty of everything.
Some have argued that it is unfair to describe Stalin's regime as "totalitarian,"
pointing out that one man, no matter how ruthlessly he exercised power,
could not control all the functions of the state. But, in fact, he didn't
have to. Totalitarianism was much more than state terror, censorship, and
concentration camps; it was a state of mind in which the very idea of a
private opinion or point of view had been destroyed. The totalitarian propagandist
forces people to believe that slavery is freedom, squalor is bounty, ignorance
is knowledge, and that a rigidly closed society is the most open in the
world. And once enough people are made to think this way, it is functionally
totalitarian even if a single dictator does not personally control everything.
Today, of course, we are made to believe that diversity is strength,
perversity is virtue, success is oppression, and that relentlessly repeating
these ideas over and over is "tolerance and diversity." Indeed, the multicultural
revolution works subversion everywhere, just as Communist revolutions did:
judicial activism undermines the rule of law; "tolerance" weakens the conditions
that make real tolerance possible; universities, which should be havens
of free inquiry, practice censorship that rivals that of the Soviets. At
the same time, we find a relentless drive for equality: the Bible, Shakespeare,
and rap "music" are just texts with "equally valid perspectives;" deviant
and criminal behavior is an "alternative life-style." Today, Dostoevsky's
Crime and Punishment would have to be repackaged as Crime and
In the Communist era, the totalitarian state was built on violence.
The purges of the 1930s and the Great Terror (which was Mao's model for
the Cultural Revolution) used violence against "class enemies" to compel
loyalty. Party members signed death warrants for "enemies of the people"
knowing that the accused were innocent, but believing in the correctness
of the charges. In the 1930s, collective guilt justified murdering
millions of Russian peasants. As cited by Robert Conquest in The Harvest
of Sorrow (p. 143), the state's view of this class was, "not one of
them was guilty of anything; but they belonged to a class that was guilty
of everything." Stigmatizing entire institutions and groups makes it much
easier to carry out wholesale change.
This, of course, is the beauty of "racism" and "sexism" for today's
culture attackers – sin can be extended far beyond individuals to include
institutions, literature, language, history, laws, customs, entire civilizations.
The charge of "institutional racism" is no different from declaring an
entire economic class an enemy of the people. "Racism" and "sexism" are
multiculturalism's assault weapons, its Big Ideas, just as class warfare
was for Communists, and the effects are the same. If a crime can be collectivized
all can be guilty because they belong to the wrong group. When young whites
are victims of racial preferences they are to-day's version of the Russian
peasants. Even if they themselves have never oppressed anyone they "belong
to the race that is guilty of everything."
The wisdom of the oppressed.
The purpose of these multi-cultural campaigns is to destroy the self.
The mouth moves, the right gestures follow, but they are the mouth and
gestures of a zombie, the new Soviet man or, today, PC-man. And once enough
people have been conditioned this way, violence is no longer necessary.
We reach steady-state totalitarianism, in which the vast majority know
what is expected of them and play their allotted roles.
The Russian experiment with revolution and totalitarian social engineering
has been fully chronicled by two of that country's greatest writers, Dostoevsky
and Solzhenitsyn. They brilliantly dissect the methods and psychology of
totalitarian control. Dostoevsky's The Devils has no equal as a
penetrating and disturbing analysis of the revolutionary and utopian mind.
The "devils" are radical students of the middle and upper classes flirting
with something they do not understand. The ruling class tries to ingratiate
itself with them. The universities have essentially declared war on society
at large. The great cry of the student radicals is freedom: freedom from
the established norms of society, freedom from manners, freedom from inequality,
freedom from the past.
Russia's descent into vice and insanity is a powerful warning of what
happens when a nation declares war on the past in the hope of building
a terrestrial paradise. Dostoevsky did not live to see the abominations
he predicted but Solzhenitsyn experienced them first hand. The Gulag
Archipelago and August 1914 can be seen as histories of ideas,
as attempts to account for the dreadful fate that befell Russia after 1917.
Solzhenitsyn identifies education and the way teachers saw their duty
as instilling hostility to all forms of traditional authority as the major
factors that explain why Russia's youth was seduced by revolutionary ideas.
In the West, during the 1960s and 1970s – which can collectively be called
"the 60s" – we hear a powerful echo of the collective mental capitulation
of Russia that took place in the 1870s and continued through the revolution.
One of the echoes
of Marxism that continues to reverberate today is the idea that truth resides
in class (or sex or race or erotic orientation).
One of the echoes of Marxism that continues to reverberate today is
the idea that truth resides in class (or sex or race or erotic orientation).
Truth is not something to be established by rational inquiry, but depends
on the perspective of the speaker. In the multicultural universe, a person's
perspective is "valued" (a favorite word) according to class. Feminists,
blacks, environmentalists and homosexuals have a greater claim to truth
because they are "oppressed." In the misery of "oppression" they see truth
more clearly than the white heterosexual men who "oppress" them. This is
a perfect mirror image of the Marxist proletariat's moral and intellectual
superiority over the bourgeoisie. Today, "oppression" confers a "privileged
perspective" that is essentially infallible. To borrow an expression from
Robert Bork's Slouching Towards Gomorrah, black and feminist activists
are "case-hardened against logical argument" – just as Communist true believers
Indeed, feminist and anti-racist activists openly reject objective truth.
Confident that they have intimidated their opposition, feminists are able
to make all kinds of demands on the assumption that men and women are equal
in every way. When outcomes do not match that belief, this is only more
evidence of white-male deviltry.
One of the most depressing sights in the West today, particularly in
the universities and in the media, is the readiness to treat feminism as
a major contribution to knowledge and to submit to its absurdities. Remarkably,
this requires no physical violence. It is the desire to be accepted that
makes people truckle to these middle-class, would-be revolutionaries. Peter
Verkhovensky, who orchestrates murder and mayhem in The Devils,
expresses it with admirable contempt: "All I have to do is to raise my
voice and tell them that they are not sufficiently liberal." The race hustlers,
of course, play the same game: Accuse a late-20th century liberal of "racism"
or "sexism" and watch him fall apart in an orgy of self-flagellation and
Maoist self-criticism. Even "conservatives" wilt at the sound of those
Ancient liberties and assumptions of innocence mean nothing when it
comes to "racism:" You are guilty until proven innocent, which is nearly
impossible, and even then you are forever suspect. An accusation of "racism"
has much the same effect as an accusation of witchcraft did in 17th century
It is the power of the charge of "racism" that stifles the derision
that would otherwise meet the idea that we should "value diversity." If
"diversity" had real benefits whites would want more of it, and would ask
that yet more cities in the U.S. and Europe be handed over to immigrants.
Of course, they are not rushing to embrace diversity and multiculturalism;
they are in headlong flight in the opposite direction. Valuing diversity
is a hobby for people who do not have to endure its benefits.
A multicultural society is one that is inherently prone to conflict,
not harmony. This is why we see a huge growth in government bureaucracies
dedicated to resolving disputes along racial and cultural lines. These
disputes can never be resolved permanently because the bureaucrats deny
one of the major causes: race. This is why there is so much talk of the
"multicultural" rather than the more precise "multiracial." Ever more changes
and legislation are introduced to make the host society ever more congenial
to racial minorities. This only creates more demands, and encourages the
non-shooting war against whites, their civilization, and even the idea
of the West.
How is such a radical program carried forward? The Soviet Union had
a massive system of censorship – the Communists even censored street maps
– and it is worth noting there were two kinds of censorship: the blatant
censorship of state agencies and the more subtle self-censorship that the
inhabitants of "peoples democracies" soon learned.
The situation in the West is not so straightforward. There is nothing
remotely comparable to Soviet-style government censorship and yet we have
deliberate suppression of dissent. Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, J. Philippe
Rushton, Chris Brand, Michael Levin, and Glayde Whitney have all been vilified
for their racial views. The case of Prof. Rushton is particularly troubling
because his academic work was investigated by the police. The attempt to
silence him was based on provisions of Canadian hate speech laws. This
is just the sort of intellectual terror one expected in the old Soviet
Union. To find it in a country that prides itself on being a pillar of
Western liberal democracy is one of the most disturbing consequences of
A mode of opinion control softer than outright censorship is the current
obsession with fictional role models. Today, the feminist and anti-racist
theme is constantly worked into movies and television as examples of Bartold
Brecht's principle that the Marxist artist must show the world not as it
is but as it ought to be. This is why we have so many screen portrayals
of wise black judges; street-wise, straight-shooting lady policemen; minority
computer geniuses; and, of course, degenerate white men. This is almost
a direct borrowing from Soviet-style socialist realism, with its idealized
depictions of sturdy proletarians routing capitalist vermin.
Multiculturalism has the same ambitions as Soviet Communism. It is absolutist
in the pursuit of its various agendas, yet it relativizes all other perspectives
in its attack on its enemies. Multiculturalism is an ideology to end all
other ideologies, and these totalitarian aspirations permit us to draw
two conclusions: First, multiculturalism must eliminate all opposition
everywhere. There can be no safe havens for counter-revolutionaries.
Second, once it is established the multicultural paradise must be defended
at all costs. Orthodoxy must be maintained with all the resources of the
Such a society would be well on its way to becoming totalitarian. It
might not have concentration camps, but it would have re-education centers
and sensitivity training for those sad creatures who still engaged in "white-male
hegemonic discourse." Rather than the hard totalitarianism of the Soviet
state we would have a softer version in which our minds would be wards
of the state. We would be liberated from the burden of thought and therefore
unable to fall into the heresy of political incorrectness.
If we think of multiculturalism as yet another manifestation of 20th
century totalitarianism, can we take solace in the fact that the Soviet
Union eventually collapsed? Is multiculturalism a phase, a periodic crisis
through which the West is passing, or does it represent something fundamental
and perhaps irreversible?
Despite the efforts of pro-Soviet elements, the West recognized the Soviet
empire as a threat. It does not recognize multiculturalism as a threat
in the same way. For this reason, many of its assumptions and objectives
remain unchallenged. Still, there are some grounds for optimism, for example,
the speed with which the term "political correctness" caught on. It took
the tenured radicals completely by surprise, but it is only a small gain.
An 1896 police photograph of Lenin.
In the long term, the most important battleground in the war against
multiculturalism is the United States. The struggle is likely to be a
slow, frustrating war of attrition. If it fails, the insanity of multiculturalism
is something white Americans will have to live with. Of course, at some
point whites may demand an end to being punished because of black failure.
As Prof. Michael Hart argues in The Real American Dilemma (published
by New Century Foundation and available from AR for $11.95, postage paid),
there could be racial partition of the United States. We may find that
what happened in the Balkans is not peculiar to that part of the world.
Race war is not something the affluent radicals deliberately seek but their
policies are pushing us in that direction.
I have argued so far that the immediate context for understanding political
correctness and multiculturalism is the Soviet Union and its catastrophic
utopian experiment. And yet the PC/multicultural mentality is much older.
In Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke offers
a portrait of the French radicals that is still relevant 200 years after
he wrote it:
"They have no respect for the wisdom of others; but they pay it off
by a very full measure of confidence in their own. With them it is sufficient
motive to destroy an old scheme of things, because it is an old one. As
to the new, they are in no sort of fear with regard to the duration of
a building run up in haste; because duration is no object to those who
think little or nothing has been done before their time, and who place
all their hopes in discovery."
Of course, multiculturalism is far from being a solution to racial or
cultural conflict. Quite the contrary. Multiculturalism is the road to
a special kind of hell that we have already seen in this gruesome 20th
century, a hell that man, having abandoned reason and in revolt against
God's order, builds for himself and others.
Frank Ellis is professor of Russian at the University of Leeds in
England. E.mail: [email protected]
• • •
TO TOP • • •
How it Works
A good example of soft totalitarianism is a recent
editorial in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. In its Aug. 18 issue
the paper deplored the fact that AR editor Jared Taylor was invited to
address a police group on the subject of racial profiling:
"An embarrassingly cursory advance review of speaker Jared Taylor's
background failed to detect that his embrace of racial profiling is inexorably
linked to his fear that white people are headed for oblivion. 'To celebrate
diversity . . . is nothing more than to celebrate our own dwindling numbers
and influence,' he has written on the Web. 'It is utterly unnatural and
will, ultimately, destroy us.'
"Such bigoted, groundless sentiments naturally implicate anything else
Taylor had to say. That includes his assertion that federal statistics
show that a higher percentage of blacks than whites commit violent crime."
No official censorship commissariat forced the Post-Intelligencer
to write this. It was purely internal thought control that made the editors
write that at least for "class enemies" an ad hominem argument is
the same as refutation. Anyone who believes that whites have an interest
in maintaining a white majority is, in their view, disqualified to speak
on any subject, even to report government statistics. In the world
of soft totalitarianism, this is the sort of tyranny we expect from the
advocates of "tolerance" and "diversity."
Our President likes to lead the attack on class enemies. In an Oct.
2 address to a group of homosexuals he said "hate" is "America's largest
problem." By "hate," of course, he means the racial and moral values Americans
took for granted until perhaps the 1960s. But if such sentiments are more
of a torment to us than crime, cancer, war and pestilence, imagine what
a desolate horror our country must have been when virtually everyone was
a "hater" who thought homosexuality was a perversion and that America should
stay white! It is only natural that Mr. Clinton should look forward to
the day when whites become a minority, for it is the desire of every revolutionary
nihilist to abolish the people in the name of the people.
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •
The Tragic Mulatto
Who's black? Who's not?
reviewed by Thomas Jackson
For most of American history, miscegenation was
thought to be a loathsome thing. Americans believed racial mixture violated
both the laws of nature and the will of the Creator, who had established
separate races with different traits. Americans were also concerned about
the psychological effect of being a child of two races. Neither black nor
white, the "tragic mulatto" was thought to be without a firm identity and
not fully accepted by people of either race. It was therefore out of respect
for the integrity of the races and from concern about the ambiguous status
of mixed-race children that many American states outlawed miscegenation.
As late as 1967, when they were struck down by the Supreme Court ruling
in Loving v. Virginia, 16 states still had anti-miscegenation laws
on the books.
Jon Michael Spencer
New York University Press, 1997, 214 pp.
Today it is fashionable to think hybrids are exotic and progressive,
that they are the ideal towards which America and the world are moving,
and that anyone opposed to mixed marriage is a wicked bigot (although endogamy
is still respectable among Jews and many non-whites). The idea that hybrids
could have identity problems is likewise thought to be "racist" patronizing.
And yet, at a time when race is as salient in our lives as ever, the identity
of mixed-race Americans is anything but clear. Although it is seldom publicized,
there is a raging controversy – particularly among blacks and mulattos
– over what it means to be mixed. It is in this debate that The New
Colored People takes an openly partisan position.
The One Drop Rule
Historically, the United States has followed the "one drop rule," according
to which anyone with even a trace of black ancestry was black. Census categories,
popular thinking, Jim Crow laws, and everything else followed this rule.
Although the federal census has had different categories over the years,
with "Mexican," "foreign-born," and "other" appearing at various times
(see sidebar), the government has never officially counted mulattos or
octoroons or any of the other arcane possibilities commonly recognized
in Brazil, for example. Negroes were Negroes, no matter how light their
It was inevitable that the racial revolution of the last 40 years would
attempt to overthrow this practice, just as it has every other. But what
has made this aspect of the revolution interesting – and also embarrassing
to liberals – is that blacks are now the most impassioned supporters of
the one drop rule. What was, in the past, a method of keeping the white
race pure by holding even light-skinned blacks at a distance is now conventional
black thinking. Most black intellectuals and "leaders" rise up in fury
against anyone who opposes it.
Prof. Spencer is
very worried about light- skinned blacks who might defect to the multiracial
Organized criticism of the one drop rule comes from people who want
the United States to implement an official new racial designation, namely,
"multiracial." But who wants it and why? It seems that the most energetic
proponents are whites married to non-whites and who have hybrid children.
If they are married to blacks, they don't like the one drop rule because
it means their children can't be anything but black – which is a repudiation
of the white parent. At the same time they argue it is unrealistic and
cruel to force hybrids to call themselves either black, white, Asian or
American Indian. They don't like the "other" census category because it
sounds like an afterthought. The leaders of the campaign appear to be whites
affiliated with organizations with names like Project RACE (Reclassify
All Children Equally), American Association for Multi-Ethnic Americans,
A Place For Us, and with magazines like Interrace.
There are also some mulattos and other light-skinned hybrids who don't
like being told they must be black and only black. Jana Wright, in an essay
in Interracial Voice, writes: "If you are of mixed-race, you are
often called upon to prove your Blackness, as though a lack of melanin
proves that you don't want to 'uplift the race'." She argues that by adding
a multiracial category she and people like her could be "no longer just
'half' Black, we could be Black AND White."
At the other extreme is a mulatto who completely rejects whiteness:
"Until the last remnant of white racism is verifiably eliminated from the
Earth, all 'non-whites' – however one defines that – must contribute to
the continuation and the strengthening of the . . . 'fundamental racial
distinction' in America by identifying solely with their/our non-European
Heather Green, a Canadian mulatto takes the same view: "If I do anything
short of vigilantly embracing my African identity – consciously, wholeheartedly
and without illusions about African realities – then I may be swept away,
co-opted, consumed and sucked into the European power structure, culture
and mindset which preaches that because of African blood, I am inferior."
The New Colored People is essentially a book-length argument
in support of this view. Jon Michael Spencer, who is a professor of music
and American studies at the University of Richmond, offers two kinds of
arguments to support the one drop rule. The first has to do simply with
numbers. Congressional districts are sometimes drawn to give black voters
a majority, and employment discrimination cases often turn on whether a
white employer had the same proportion of blacks in his workforce as live
in the neighborhood. So long as numbers can be an advantage, Prof. Spencer
doesn't want a single black to slip into a different category.
There is strength in numbers even aside from government regulation:
"While whites, with their majority status, hunt down, identify, and discriminate
against everyone with that 'one drop,' the greater number of blacks resulting
from the 'rule' make it more difficult for our oppressors to maintain the
institutions of discrimination." The second part of this argument is nonsense.
As the history of South Africa or of the ante-bellum South shows, a small
number of whites can govern large numbers of blacks if they wish, but Prof.
Spencer is correct to glory in numbers. Today, bloc voting by blacks is
a powerful tool for advancing black interests.
However, his main objection to the multiracial category, to which he
devotes most of the book, is that it might undermine black consciousness
and solidarity: "[O]pponents of the multiracial movement suspect that the
movement's real aim is to dismantle the black community."
He quotes a black, F. James Davis, who argues that "the suggestion today
that the one-drop rule is an arbitrary social construction that could be
changed sounds to the black community like a dangerous idea. If one result
of such a change would be to cause some lighter-colored persons to leave
the black community for the white community, the former would lose some
of its hard-won political strength, perhaps some of its best leaders .
. . ."
Frederick Douglass: black,
colored, or multiracial?
Prof. Spencer is also very much afraid light-skinned blacks will bolt.
He worries about "blacks who [might] defect to the multiracial category"
and wonders about their motives: "Some opponents of the multiracial movement
may also suspect that the real aim of the multiracialists, particularly
those who have traditionally been viewed as black due to the one-drop rule,
is for the mixed-race blacks to be able to dissociate themselves from that
despised caste." Odd as it may seem, Prof. Spencer wants to bind to the
black race the very people he thinks secretly despise blacks and would
prefer to have nothing to do with them.
Prof. Spencer suspects that the white parents of hybrids are also desperate
to find a new racial category that will keep their children out of the
"despised caste" – though this is a mean-spirited reproach to whites who,
by marrying blacks, have made the most profoundly pro-black, integrationist
statement possible. Prof. Spencer's fear that the friends and relations
of the black race are all waiting for a chance to run for the door must
say something about his own feelings about being black.
He goes on to argue – rather fantastically – that the new classification
would "do nothing more than break up the black community." He writes of
"the havoc that would be brought upon the black racial identity and black
solidarity" and warns of "the havoc that would likely be wreaked in the
black community" by a loss of black solidarity. Any decline in black power
is a serious concern because "the destruction of white supremacy will not
occur by further fragmenting the black community or peoples of color."
Prof. Spencer is particularly touchy about the idea that some of the
icons of black history might have been "multiracial" rather than black.
Nothing seems to infuriate him more than the thought of the white parents
saying to their hybrid children, "Colin Powell, Lena Horne, Alex Haley,
and Malcolm X were multiracial, just like you." He thinks this is nothing
less than the theft of black history, adding, "The United States has a
history of this kind of grand larceny." "Is Black History Month to be replaced
by Multiracial History Month?" he asks. For Afro-centrists this may be
a real worry because without the one drop rule, not even the most brazen
of them can claim that Nefertiti, Jesus, Rameses, and Beethoven were "black."
Prof. Spencer has visited South Africa and thinks multiracials would
probably become like the Coloreds – mixed-race Africans who had an apartheid
status above that of blacks but below whites. He says whites are past masters
at throwing mulattos a few scraps to win their help in oppressing blacks.
He can easily imagine a co-opted class of light-skinned "house niggers"
outdoing whites in anti-black behavior, and believes that if the United
States had granted mulattos special privileges they would have left blacks
to fend for themselves. He warns that "in Brazil, the mulattos, in their
struggle to get on the white bandwagon, kick their darker kindred around
even more severely than the whites."
He notes that black-mulatto tension is ripe for exploitation: "Already
there is a lack of trust in the black community for those who appear mixed,
given that historically whites have chosen mixed-race people who are part
white to guard their systems of power and privilege in countries they have
colonized." He adds that if mulattos defected to a new category blacks
might never agree to take them back.
Prof. Spencer therefore wants to support the one drop rule in every
possible way. It is only with the greatest reluctance that he would let
anyone who is part-black be anything but black. He does concede that "African
Americans must open up new space for mixed-race blacks to be biracially
black." He does not elaborate on what would be in that "space" – perhaps
hybrids cannot be expected to be as hostile to whites as real blacks –
but such people are to be biracially black, rather than biracial.
The huge majority of whites wouldn't think twice about giving hybrids
the option of checking a "multiracial" box on their census form and would
be astonished at the vehemence of the views expressed by Prof. Spencer
and by the people he quotes. And it must have been a fearsome shock for
the idealistic white parents of mulattos to find themselves accused of
wanting to undermine the black race when they proposed for their children
a racial classification that was something other than 100 percent black.
James Landrith is a white man married to a black woman, and edits a
publication called The Multiracialist Activist. He is bitter about
"traditional civil rights groups who tend to brush off our community or
denigrate us." "These same groups," he writes, "are the ones battering
self-identifying multiracials as 'running from their blackness' and calling
them 'Uncle Tom' as well as belittling and demeaning interracial marriages."
The white liberal goal is to do away with racial consciousness, or at
least to allow voluntary, multiple and even shifting racial identities.
Liberals soon discover that blacks want the very opposite; for many of
them race comes first. When Prof. Spencer writes about "the havoc that
would be brought upon the black racial identity and black solidarity" if
there were to be a multiracial category, he takes for granted that racial
consciousness and solidarity are essential for blacks.
It is therefore almost amusing to watch Prof. Spencer struggle with
the fashionable and now nearly obligatory view that race is a biological
fraud. He apparently feels he has to endorse this silliness but his heart
is not in it; he cannot turn his back on race. He says the country needs
"an obliteration of racism . . . before the people at the bottom of the
social and economic totem [pole] of American society abandon the unity
and protective barrier that race has brought them so far." He says he believes
in "the denunciation of race but the dependency on race until the vestiges
of racism are obliterated," adding that "we must be careful not to abandon
the idea of race too hastily and not to let those groups that have been
history's oppressors forget their behavior too soon." In other words race
may be rubbish, but blacks should use it to their advantage and keep whitey
on the hop as long as they can.
It is in sentiments like these that we find the significance of black
opposition to the proposed new census category. It was a significance few
whites understand: Racial solidarity is so important to blacks that the
most innocent and even obvious proposal that could conceivably undermine
it unleashes near-hysterical opposition.
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •
Figuring Out Who's Who
The flap over how black is black enough went public
briefly in 1997, when the government considered adding a "multiracial"
category to the 2000 census. Activists had already succeeded in getting
Georgia, Ohio, and Illinois to let people call themselves "multiracial,"
and they wanted the same from the Census Bureau.
Ever since 1977, the US government has recognized four races: white,
black, Asian-and-Pacific-Islander, and American-Indian-and-Eskimo. The
government also recognizes one "ethnicity" – Hispanic – and then apportions
all Hispanics among the four recognized races. When people fill in census
forms they are supposed to pick their own race, and until recently the
government told hybrids that "the category which most closely reflects
the individual's recognition in his community should be used for purposes
of reporting on persons who are of mixed racial and/or ethnic origins."
Presumably, if your "community" thinks you are black (or white), that is
what you are.
For the 1990 census, the government added a new racial category: "other."
Four percent of the population – more than 10 million people – said they
were "other," though the census bureau then divided them up into the four
official races so as not to leave loose ends. It would be interesting to
know how many of the 10 million were Arabs or mulattos or others with genuine
objections to the four categories, and how many were white liberals casting
a stylish protest vote against the idea of race.
In lobbying for the new category, "progressives" hoped that a "multiracial"
category would be the first step towards obliterating racial classification
altogether. Everyone is really multiracial, they argued, and since race
is nothing more than prejudice and fake biology, the government shouldn't
even be collecting the data.
The government studied the proposed new category carefully. It did a
survey to see how many people would call themselves multiracial, and found
it would be only about one percent of blacks and even fewer whites. On
reflection, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which decides these
things, concluded that a multiracial category would just "create another
population group, and no doubt add to racial tension and further fragmentation
of our population." (Immigration doesn't do that?) This was exactly what
The New Colored People was saying.
What OMB did decide was to let hybrids check as many of the four racial
categories as they like. "When the data are reported," it explained, "counts
should be provided of the number of persons who checked two races, three
races or four races, and information on the combinations should also be
This was the compromise that probably offended the fewest people. Advocates
of the multiracial category who wanted their hybrid children to be able
to avoid repudiating one side of the family were satisfied. People like
Prof. Spencer were unhappy the census now gives mulattos the option of
an identity that includes something other than black, but are glad there
is no official, multiracial category.
It was the activists who wanted to destroy the concept of race who were
the most disappointed. They hoped eventually to persuade just about everybody
to claim to be "multiracial" and thereby bring down the entire classification
system. Since they were pushing what they call "the option of racelessness,"
they were angry that hybrids must identify themselves in specifically racial
terms – the very terms they hope to abolish.
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •
Germany: Islamic Gangrene
What the Muslims really want.
by Eric Domard
In the name of a suicidal "human rights" policy,
Germany has accepted thousands of foreign immigrants who, just as in France,
cannot be assimilated. In the new Europe-without-borders, these new arrivals
have been dumped in the suburbs, which have become semi-lawless areas where
hundreds of youths wander the streets. Caught between idleness and delinquency,
these washouts of the "Germany for everyone" policy are the perfect prey
for the Islamicists. To the integrationist blather of the politicians,
the recruiters of Milli Görüs offer a clear alternative message:
all Muslims belong wholly to the Islamic world and to their countries of
origin. This is just the message with which to recruit young Turks by the
dozen for the largest Islamic organization in Germany. The Hodjas (religious
elders) have stolen a march on the integration bureaucracy and now hold
the terrain. Not one of the 500 mosques in Germany has escaped the control
of MG, and its 28,000 members now preach the good word to the some three
million Muslims living in Germany.
MG handles everything from cradle to grave. Its financial basis, its
logistics expertise, and sense of organization permit it to weave quite
a web. Among its beneficiaries are children to whom it offers courses in
computers or whom it sends on free vacations, believers for whom it picks
up the tab for a pilgrimage to Mecca, and even bereaved families for whom
it loosens its purse strings when they cannot afford to send the body back
home for burial.
Indoctrinate the Masses
From breadlines for the needy to the soccer ball MG may buy for the
youths in the neighborhoods, nothing is left to chance. By means
of this Islamic charity – which the German authorities applaud – the association
methodically pursues its objective: the indoctrination of the Muslim masses.
The first demonstration of power was a "day of youth," held several
weeks ago in Düsseldorf. To cries of "Allah Akbar" (God is Great),
seven thousand people marched in step, men on the right, veiled women on
the left. Within a few minutes thousands of red and green flags – the colors
of Turkey and of Islam – were unfurled beneath the Rhenish sky. The Turkish
national anthem took the place of Deutschland Über Alles. What a shock
for a disillusioned Germany, astonished that millions of second-generation
Turks, raised on an integrationist diet, should be singing the praises
of "Turkey, my dear fatherland" and of Necmettin Erbakan, a former prime
minister of Turkey and generous patron of MG. Even if Mr. Erbakan takes
care never to talk about the Islamicization of Germany, his supporters
make no mystery of their goals. As MG points out in one of its bulletins,
"the Community is a means to an end, and the end is an Islamic society."
Mehmet Erbakan, nephew of the former prime minister, certainly takes
this view. But unlike the bearded ones, whom he considers behind the times,
he prefers to learn the ways of German society the better to infiltrate
it. Suits in the latest style have taken the place of Arab robes, and he
chooses his words with care. The younger Erbakan doesn't like the term
"religious association" and prefers to call MG "the representative of a
minority that has not had a voice for a generation and a half." His target
is the German federal government, which has not shown sufficient respect
for the Muslim community. In his frequent speeches, the Secretary General
of MG rails against everything from the electoral success of conservative
parties in East Germany to the lack of Islamic religious instruction in
schools, to job discrimination against young foreigners, to prohibitions
against the Islamic headdress in schools.
Allies on the Left
Mr. Erbakan goes even further. He adds threats to his denunciations,
cleverly catching the Social-Democratic government in the trap of citizenship
reform: "If 1.7 million Muslims gain German citizenship, we will not just
be a plaything for the politicians; we will become a real electoral potential"
without which the left cannot stay in power.
This threat is clear enough to keep the Berlin government conciliatory.
Otto Schily, the Interior Minister, has ignored security service warnings
about the number of Islamic fundamentalists, and has proposed that the
Islamic movements be
A black in French Revolutionary dress welcomes
a Turkish woman to "the new Germany." The Turk holds in her hand a torn
copy of the Germany's former "right of blood" law that permitted citizenship
only by descent.
given public support that would put them on an equal footing with Christian
churches. MG, which has infiltrated the Islamic Council (which represents
900,000 Muslims and is therefore the official interlocutor with the German
government), immediately won an agreement that Islamic associations would
teach religious courses in secondary schools.
Going beyond religion, MG activists have launched an assault on other
institutions. They have targeted labor unions, student organizations, parent-teacher
associations, and have made particular inroads in the Foreigners Councils
(consultative organs set up in the various Lander), where they hold the
majority of seats. Not even the political parties have escaped subversion.
When the Christian Democrats recently threw out a member after learning
he belonged to an Islamic association, the Social Democrats welcomed him
with open arms. Several members of MG are in the Socialist Youth. As MG
leader Mustafa Teneroglu explains, "the Koran is also the expression of
social and democratic thought." Above all, he believes in an ancestral
mission begun several centuries ago by the Saracens, continued by the Ottomans
and more recently by the Albanian Kossovars: the conquest and Islamicization
of the West.
Of course, if MG is powerful in Germany it is because of the millions
of Turks who live there. But on a smaller scale, France with its 400,000
Turkish Kurds is hardly likely to be spared.
This article is translated, with permission, from the July 30-September
2 issue of Rivarol, a French periodical. Address: 1, rue d'Hauteville,
75010 Paris, France.
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •
O Tempora, O Mores!
Didn't Make the Evening News
On August 16th, Terrence McCray and Ledell Lawrence, both black, decided
to attack the next white person they saw on their street in Jacksonville,
Florida. A retarded man named Gregory Griffith was the hapless victim;
the two beat and stomped him unconscious and he died ten days later. Both
Mr. McCray and Mr. Lawrence admitted they beat the man "because he was
white." State attorneys have not decided whether to pursue the case as
a hate crime. (Police: Murder of Handicapped White Man Racially Motivated,
Tampa Tribune, September 4, 1999.)
Whites living in a largely Puerto Rican part of Chicago woke up one
morning to find unfriendly mail. The letters contained, "strong racist
messages, threatening them with violence unless they moved out of the neighborhood."
Police say they received about 20 complaints but believe that a great many
more whites got the letters. A Chicago city councilman has announced a
$1,000 reward for information on who sent the letters. (www.latnn.com,
White Residents Threatened in Puerto Rican Neighborhood, September 2, 1999.)
In Boulder, Colorado, "Asian Crips" leader Sonny Lee decided to help
his friend Kather Yang, who wanted to have sex with a white woman. Together
with four other Asian men they found a white University of Colorado student
walking alone early on the morning of August 29th. They dragged her into
a minivan, where they raped her and forced her to have oral sex. At one
point she jumped out naked and tried to escape, but her assailants caught
her and dragged her back into the van where they continued to rape her.
"They were all screaming at her, calling her names and hitting her," said
Detective Jane Harmer. "It was a free-for-all." One man threatened to "cut
and burn her," and another put a gun to the back of her head when they
released her. Five suspects – Kao Vang, 18, Chu Vang, 16, Steve Yang, 19,
Johnny Lee, 17, and Sonny Lee, 23 – face charges of kidnapping and sexual
assault. Kather Yang, whose desire for a white woman was the cause of it
all, killed himself in a Green Bay, Wisconsin, motel room. (Kevin McCullen,
Rape Suspects Were Seeking White Woman, Denver Rocky Mountain News, September
In San Francisco as many as ten black women decided to go "looking for
Asian girls" to rob. They fell upon three sisters aged 17, 21, and 22,
whom they beat and robbed. Two other victims were apparently able to fight
them off and run away. Someone saw the thieves emptying a stolen purse
and called the police, who managed to arrest three of them – two 15-year-olds
and a 17-year-old – before the rest scattered. "Two of the three (said)
that the plan was to go up to Japantown and look for Asian girls," said
Inspector Simon Silverman of the Night Investigations Unit. "They told
me that they went deliberately looking for Chinese girls because they felt
that they are more vulnerable and that they would carry more money." (Jim
Herron Zamora, 3 Girls Jailed in Racial Assault, San Francisco Examiner,
September 14, 1999.)
Success in Austria
In the latest national elections the Freedom Party, led by nationalist
Joerg Haider, stunned Europe with its success. With 27.7 percent of the
vote it is second only to the governing Socialists, who won 33.4 percent.
It pulled ahead of the conservative People's Party and is poised to enter
a coalition government.
Mr. Haider has won votes – and the usual obloquy – because of his opposition
to immigration. During the campaign Vienna was festooned with posters that
said "Stop Over-Foreignerization." In
the past, Mr. Haider has startled the bourgeoisie by arguing that Hitler
had a good employment policy and that the men who fought in the Waffen
SS were "loyal patriots." The Freedom Party's latest success has led to
the usual self-righteous hand-wringing all across Europe as well as in
the United States, where White House spokesman James Rubin warned arrogantly
that Mr. Haider had better not bring his "xenophobic" views with him if
he joins Austria's next government. (Susan Ladika, Nationalists Score Big
Electoral Gain, Washington Times, Oct. 4, 1999, p. A11. David Sands, U.S.
Calls for Stifling of Pro-Nazi Viewpoints, Washington Times, Oct. 5, 1999,
Police Chief Fights
In April we reported that Carl Williams, the New Jersey State Police
Superintendent was fired for pointing out in a Newark Star-Ledger
interview that non-whites were more likely to run drugs than whites. Blacks
shrieked about "racial profiling" and Superintendent Williams had to go.
New Jersey Governor Christine Whitman has since replaced him with a black
former FBI agent. Mr. Williams has now filed a law suit against the governor,
claiming that she fired him because he is white and that she wanted to
appoint a black to further her political career. (It is probably true that
any black police official who had told the truth about who runs drugs would
not have been fired.) In his $21 million suit, Mr. Williams says
that in public statements Gov. Whitman herself "expressly admitted that
she had no problem with the use of race as one of several proxies for potential
The 2,700-member state police force is mostly white, and the majority
of troopers have remained loyal to Mr. Williams. They are also annoyed
that their new chief did not come up through the ranks as Mr. Williams
did, but was hired from outside the force. Gov. Whitman says the case against
her is baseless and that the suit will further weaken police morale. (Whitman:
Williams' Lawsuit is Baseless, The Press (Atlantic City), Oct. 5, 1999.
p. C6. Wendy Ruderman, Whitman Fears Suit May Stir Tensions, Times (Trenton),
Oct. 5, 1999.)
Is Honor Color-Blind?
The University of Virginia at Charlottesville has an honor code that
requires expulsion for any student who lies, cheats or steals. The 157-year-old
code is now under attack because non-whites are more likely than whites
to violate it and be expelled. Last year, for example, Asian students were
eight times more likely to get the boot, blacks were four times as likely,
and Hispanics five times as likely. (The total number of students expelled
was so low – 19 – that the small sample size makes these comparisons unreliable
but blacks, at least, appear to have been overrepresented for many years.)
Naturally blacks smell "racism." Rick Turner, dean of African-American
affairs, points out that 97 percent of the people who brought accusations
of honor code violations were white and says this proves the "system is
biased and needs monitoring." It does not seem to have occurred to him
that people who are, themselves, more likely to violate the code may not
be zealous about enforcing it. (David Fallis, Questioning U-VA's Honor,
Washington Post, Oct. 3, 1999, p. C1.) If minorities have their way, the
code will be abolished or denatured. One more institution built by whites
for whites will have been set aside because non-whites could not meet its
Sibusiso Madubela was a captain in the Azanian Peoples Liberation Army
during the fight against apartheid in South Africa. In 1994, when the country
was handed over to the ANC, he joined the South African Defense Force but
his rank was reduced to lieutenant, a demotion he considered "racist."
Earlier this year, he was granted leave from the Tempe military base in
Bloemfontein to bury his father, but he overstayed his leave by ten days
and had his pay docked. On September 16th he asked to see the base commander
to complain about the punishment but the commander was elsewhere. Lieutenant
Madubela then checked out his weapon and went on a shooting rampage, killing
six white officers and a white woman civilian. He is reported to have pushed
blacks out of the way in order to get clear shots at whites. He also managed
to wound five people – all white – before he was shot and killed by one
of the whites he wounded. Siphiwe Nyanda, chief of the South African Defense
Force, insisted that it would be a mistake to assume that the shootings
were racially motivated.
Lieutenant Madubela's funeral attracted an estimated 2,000 mourners.
The Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC), which still lingers on from anti-apartheid
days, was furious that the army did not give him a military burial and
vowed it would fire its own 12-gun salute. As people arrived at the burial
ground, police confiscated weapons while blacks chanted "one settler [one
white], one bullet." In the funeral oration a PAC official vowed that his
group would carry on Mr. Madubela's good work and that the lieutenant had
gone on his heroic rampage in order to "teach whites a lesson." PAC members
then began to fire a salute but were stopped by police who fired their
own weapons into the air. At least three people were hurt in the panic
The funerals of the white officers were calmer but not without tension.
Some black soldiers reportedly refused to join the honor guard, and blacks
from other units are said to have been rounded up to fill out the ranks.
The integration of black "liberation" fighters into the South African
army has not gone smoothly. The Tempe base was one of the first at which
it was attempted, and the result has been continuous racial tension in
an army in which most of the high-ranking officers are still white. British
experts called in to help with integration warned two years ago that there
was much hostility, calling Tempe "a racial powder keg waiting to explode."
(AP, S. African Shooter Had Been AWOL, Sept. 17, 1999. Black Lieutenant
Kills 6 White Officers, Civilian, Washington Times, Sept. 18, 1999, p.
A5. Elise Mnyandu, Race Tension Mars Burial of White S. African Troops,
Reuters, Sept. 22, 1999. Michel Muller, Police Shoot at S. African Funeral,
AP, Oct. 2, 1999.)
Billboard Back Up
Last month AR reported on Craig Nelsen, who put up anti-immigration
billboards in New York City. They caused a huge stink, and city officials
ordered them down, claiming they violated zoning regulations. In September,
Mr. Nelsen put up his largest billboard yet, near the Williamsburg Bridge
in Brooklyn. It reads, "Because of mass immigration, the U.S. population
will exceed half a billion in my lifetime. Help us, Congress. –
An American Kid, age 6." An official for the Department of Buildings says
it will investigate to see if the new billboard violates regulations.
Mr. Nelsen is renting the space for $6,500 a month and is not worried
about harassment. "I hope they rip it down," he says. "It will draw more
attention. The more they squawk, the better we look. The average American
just agrees with us on this. Every time the city rips down the billboard
it just strengthens our position." Mr. Nelsen has also notified the city
that he intends to sue for damages. He says the city interfered with his
contract for earlier billboards, abridged his freedom of speech, and defamed
him. (Julian Barnes, Immigration Foe Puts Up Another Billboard; City to
Investigate Legality, New York Times, September 8, 1999.)
Hispanics are flooding into the South. In Dalton, Georgia, which has
several carpet-making mills, one percent of the school children were Hispanic
in 1987; now 42 percent are Hispanic. Schools all over the south are desperate
for teachers who speak Spanish, and some are willing to hire them all the
way from Mexico.
The newcomers are unfamiliar with the history and culture of the South.
"Most of them don't know what the Confederate flag is or that the South
had a tradition of the KKK," says Jacqueline Rosier of the Mexican American
Legal Defense and Education Fund. "This is all new to them." They have
found no shortage of teachers.
Nelson B. Rivers, director of the NAACP in Atlanta, sees new comrades:
"It's a natural alliance. I can't imagine why anyone would see it as a
threat. We are already working together. We have both been suppressed and
excluded, so we have a lot in common." (Gil Klein, Hispanics Fueling Boom
in Old South, Richmond Times-Dispatch, September 5, 1999, p. A1. Wes Allison,
More Hispanics in Area, Census Shows, Richmond Times-Dispatch, September
5, 1999, p. A8.)
Housing Their Own
A federal housing study of the Los Angeles area has stumbled upon the obvious:
blacks and Hispanics don't like each other. In an experiment in which Hispanics
posing as renters went to black-run buildings and blacks applied at Hispanic-run
buildings, both groups were shown the door more than half the time. Applicants
of the right race got offers of apartments even when their credit records
were worse. One Hispanic manager said outright that he didn't rent to blacks.
A Korean pretended not to be the manager when he was approached by a non-Korean.
Many buildings advertise only in Spanish or Korean, which makes it clear
what tenants they want. In the stilted language of UCLA geographer William
A.V. Clark, all this is "striking evidence of persisting own-race selectivity
and avoidance of other races." (Ted Rohrloch, 2 Studies Find Racial Bias
in Rental Practices, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 27, 1999, p. B1.)
Hiring Their Own
A Los Angeles Times poll of minority-owned businesses in Los
Angeles County found that non-white business owners overwhelmingly prefer
to hire people of their own race or ethnic group. Nearly three quarters
of Hispanic business owners described their work force as mostly Hispanic
and 41 percent of black owners have a mostly black work force. About one-third
of Asians and whites employ mostly other Asians or whites. No more than
three percent of any minority group reported a mostly white work force.
When business owners hire outside their own racial group, they prefer
Hispanics to blacks. Only one percent of Latinos reported a mostly black
work force; only three percent of Asians and four percent of whites hired
mostly blacks. At the same time, almost 30 percent of white owners reported
a largely or partly Latino work force. The black-Hispanic difference is
only partly explained by the fact that Hispanic workers outnumber black
workers 41 percent to eight percent (Asians are 12 percent and whites are
39 percent). (Lee Romney, Minority-Owned Firms Tend to Hire Within Own
Ethnic Group, Los Angeles Times, September 18, 1999.)
Same People, Same Problems
It has become fashionable to blame "inner-city" problems on high-rise
housing projects. The new theory is that vertical concentration of poor
people oppresses them, and that in dispersed, low-rise houses they will
reform. All over the country, cities are boarding up (and sometimes blowing
up) ancient high-rises. Two years ago the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA)
followed fashion by launching a huge project to move poor blacks into white-trimmed,
turreted town houses. The first phase, which cost $80 million, was to replace
the Henry Horner complex with 350 new houses and showcase CHA efforts to
transform the entire area.
To the surprise of city officials, in just two years an entire block
is now riddled with boarded up windows and burnt-out shells. The quick
deterioration reportedly "raises perplexing questions about whether architecture
or more stubborn cultural pathologies are at the heart of public housing
woes." Residents have a simpler answer. Shanika Ellis points out that the
buildings may be different "but you still have the same people with the
same mentality." The CHA has a solution: It will pay a consulting firm
one million dollars to assess the "housekeeping skills" of prospective
tenants and to train residents in "housekeeping, parenting, financial
management, and job readiness." (Melita Marie Garza, Old Problems Plague
New Low-Rises, Chicago Tribune, September 20, 1999, p.1.)
No one seems to remember that many high-rise projects were originally
built for poor whites, who were somehow immune from the effects of vertical
concentration. It was only when residents became largely non-white that
the buildings' architectural defects were discovered.
Save the Elephants
For nearly a year, South Africa has been in a tizzy over the fate of
30 or 40 elephants – at least part of South Africa has. In the summer of
1998, a company
called African Game Services (AGS) rounded up elephants from overpopulated
herds in neighboring Botswana and undertook to habituate them to humans
before selling them to zoos and circuses. Long-simmering charges of cruelty
to the animals came to a head with a widely-broadcast pirate video of an
AGS trainer bludgeoning a chained baby elephant so brutally that the screaming
animal urinated on itself. This has prompted an almost exclusively white
animal welfare protest movement, with as many as 5,000 whites chanting
and picketing at such remote locations as the AGS compound.
Naturally, South African blacks think any uplift movement should benefit
them, not animals. "The animal kingdom clearly surpasses Africans when
it comes to 'rights,' " complains a typical black, and one black newspaper
editor has suggested that "maybe we should dress our poor up as elephants."
Another black says whites "are in some sort of denial or [have] a heavy
case of misdirected guilt." (Paul Salopek, In S. Africa, a Mammoth Debate,
Chicago Tribune, Aug. 1, 1999, p. 1.)
Whites are, indeed, misdirected. They are more willing to demonstrate
by the thousands for the welfare of elephants than they are to work for
the future of their own people.
Let the Grovelling Begin
Albert Gore appears to be willing to go to any length to woo Hispanics,
who accounted for five percent of the electorate in the 1996 presidential
race. In September
he spoke to the annual Congressional Hispanic Caucus dinner, where he told
the audience that his first grandchild was born on July fourth. "My next
one I hope will be born on Cinco de Mayo," he said. (Ceci Connolly, Politicians
Court Hispanic Vote, Washington Post, Sept. 16, 1999, p. A12.)
Pillory the Pilgrim
The town of Southampton on Long Island has something called the Anti-Bias
Task Force, which his recently opened fire on the town seal. Adopted in
1929, the seal depicts a pilgrim, the date 1640, and the words: "First
English settlement in the State of New York." The task force has passed
a unanimous resolution calling on the town to dump the seal because it
"features an offensive representation of one gender, one race and one historical
period." To suggest that meaningful history began in 1640 is to ignore
the contributions of the Shinnecock Indians. (Donna Giacontieri, Is Town
Seal Offensive? Southampton Press, Sept., 24, 1999, p. 1.)
Fortunately, when the resolution was reported in the Southampton
Press, residents swamped the town council with angry calls and letters,
saving the seal – at least for now.
In a Vegetable State
The Florida Tomato Committee is a group of tomato growers that makes
recommendations to the U.S. Department of Agriculture about federal tomato
regulations. In September, the industry planned to ratify nominations for
the committee at the 24th annual Joint Tomato Conference, which attracts
hundreds of growers, shippers, and equipment suppliers. At the last minute,
Kathleen Merrigan of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service queered the
do by refusing to accept this year's nominations. In a letter to the committee
she wrote, "I am concerned about the committee's lack of significant effort
and commitment to increase participation of women, minorities and persons
with disabilities in the nomination process."
At the beginning of the decade there were more than 800 tomato growers
in the state but international competition has reduced the number to fewer
than 100. Wayne Hawkins, manager of the committee, says he doesn't know
a single woman or non-white chief executive in the whole industry. As for
"people with disabilities," Dan McClure, president of West Coast Tomato,
walks on crutches but has served on the committee for more than ten years.
His renomination therefore did not increase the percentage of disabled.
Miss Merrigan of the USDA wants the committee to produce an outreach
plan to recruit the right sort of people, adding that if she accepts the
plan she "will ask the committee to conduct new nominations for my consideration."
(Jennifer Maddox and Laura Layden, Feds: Too Few Women, Minorities on State
Tomato Panel, Naples (Florida) Daily News, Sept. 10, 1999.)
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •
E T T E R S F R O M R E A D E
Sir – After reading Glayde Whitney's fascinating article on the biology
of racial differences I understand much better why the other side is so
intent on downplaying this subject. Some of these characteristics – the
height of Pygmies, the fat accumulation on the buttocks of Hottentots –
are strikingly different from anything found in other groups. In some cases,
one begins to wonder whether we are even the same species. I assume that
if modern means of transportation had no been invented and the various
groups had continued to develop in isolation humans would have branched
into different species. Whether one believes the races are created by God
or are the result of evolution, it is difficult to believe that despite
the huge number of physical differences that separate them, only the brain
and its functions are identical in all groups. Biology is no friend of
Conrad Schmidt, Rumson, N.J.
Sir – It is incorrect for Prof. Whitney to describe blacks as a "dominant
social group" in America because they take over our cities, mate with our
women, and acquire our resources. It is not the dominating nature of blacks
that causes this but the submissiveness of whites. Blacks (and other non-whites)
are only doing what we permit them to do. If whites wished, they have the
material means to rule not only their own countries but the entire world
– much as they did in the 19th century – but they have completely lost
their nerve. Prof. Whitney is therefore describing white capitulation,
not black accomplishment. It would be bad enough to be displaced by people
more advanced than ourselves; it is unspeakable to be displaced by primitives.
Alan Kerbs, Paintsville, Ky.
Sir – We learn in the October O Tempora report on Craig Nelsen that
the city council of New York City thinks it is hate-mongering to believe
that America is headed for overpopulation, which could be cured by reducing
immigration. Has it really become impossible to discuss American population
levels without being called a "racist"? Liberalism has become such a caricature
of itself that America may soon laugh it out of existence. Soviet Communism
eventually collapsed under the weight of its own idiocy. Our system will
Sharon Tomlinson, Oceanside, Cal.
Sir – With all due respect to the materials in American Renaissance
in general, as a repeated victim of black crime, I feel that Mr. Taylor's
investigations of the "color of crime," are the most significant of all.
Charles Weber, Tulsa, Okla.
Sir – Last month you reported on the beating of a 12-year-old white
at the hands of three black classmates in Chicago. A judge has ruled the
beating does not constitute a hate crime. The September 2nd Sun-Times reports
that Juvenile Court Judge Charles M. May ruled that the three attackers
should be charged only with battery. He claims it is too difficult to determine
whether the taunts were racial slurs. The attackers called the boy "Pillsbury
Doughboy" and "white boy." A black parent who witnessed the attack said
she heard the attackers say, "Yeah, we're going to whip that white boy's
Name Withheld, Chicago, Il.
Sir – I can sympathize with Alton Tolbert's frustration at being treated
like an outsider by the Japanese but I also sympathize with the Japanese.
Just as whites do not need non-whites to "enrich" their culture, Japanese
do not need non-Japanese to "enrich" theirs.
Larry McBride, San Francisco, Cal.
Sir – I am a Christian but I was impressed by your account of the early
Greek and Roman religions. It would be hard to imagine a faith more likely
to preserve bloodline and culture. On the other hand, a religion of the
family did not preserve the Romans from dilution and displacement by aliens.
Mark Your Calendars!
next AR conference has been set for the week- end of March 31 through April
2, 2000. Like the previous one, it will be held in the Washington,
DC, area close to Dulles International
Airport. We are now finalizing the list of speakers and will an- nounce registration
details soon. We look forward to seeing you!
Likewise, the universalism of Christianity that so many white nationalists
deplore has been an obstacle to us only for the past few decades. So what
are we to conclude? The Greeks and Romans had a particularist religion
but failed to preserve their particularity. Whites have had a universalist
religion and are now failing just as the ancients did. Perhaps religion
is not central to a sense of nation; it may not be the most powerful weapon
of self-defense in a people's armory. But if religion is not central what
is? What is it that we and the Romans both eventually lost?
Paul Tanner, Newport News, Va.
• • •
BACK TO TOP • •