Racial antipathies are a historical reality. It is this fact alone that grants credence to a lot of what we hear about racial strife. But even here, a history of carefully crafted definitions to create a narrative has been hard at work.
CONTENT WARNING : CONSERVATIVE WHITE GUY TALKING ABOUT RACE ISSUES!
The cultural studies professor, in fueling anti-Western ideals, has carefully crafted meaning into the word “race”.
When I talk about race I use a classical definition of heredity. I am speaking of ancestry of the body which would bring us to an origin point. From this, some divisions of humankind have been made for the purposes of categorizing, and beyond that, “race” historically implied a shared ancestor of all people (Adam and Eve).
When Leftists talk about race they are throwing in a lot of assumptions. Consider the modern definition, “a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group.”
(I find “ethnic group” particularly amusing as a term, because the original 1828 Webster definition for “ethnic” was people who weren’t Jews or Christians (heathens) … more on that later.) By “ethnic group” here is meant race – but not descending from a common human ancestor. We already see the divide and conquer coming into play….
“Culture” is another important word. Unlike many of the others we’ve looked at, this one has its roots in metaphor and poetry. It has, of course, also been re-defined by the universities and “cultural studies”.
Culture is “the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group” to which I would like to add that when we talk about culture there is often an idea of life. If the individual is motivated by a spirit, then culture can be considered a sort of “spirit” of the society.
“Racist” and “racism” are words invented as late as 1928. Even the earlier used “racialism” (which means advocating for exclusive rights based on race superiority) wasn’t a word until the very late 1800s.
So often, when we look back over history, we ascribe to events and circumstances motivations that weren’t expressible at the time they occurred.
What is clear is that “racism” or “racialism”, or whatever we mean to call it, has almost always been understood to be a motivation or a justification.
Racism of this sort is around today. But the modern thesis is that racism is no longer a motivation. It is an unconscious fiber woven through every aspect of American life.
This is such a lovely trap. It truly is. You have to admire it. It’s a great trap, perfect for dialectical materialism, because “white people” are so obviously a race, and “black people” are also very obviously a race.
If we can assign “customs and social institutions and achievements” to these races, then we’re halfway to creating continual strife between these two groups. Half the work is already done because there is such a thing as Black American Culture.
Black America is a Culture
And how could it not be?
Unlike most of white America, black Americans cannot trace ancestry back to a village and a register. Their original cultural identity was stripped.
And while some black researchers and scholars of brilliance have researched and followed history back to Africa, and published these, their teachings have not been mainstreamed.
Black America has risen and established a proud American heritage in the face of centuries of adversity, set-back and hardship. It’s actually quite remarkable what black Americans have achieved in all aspects of society despite all social obstacles.
Black America is a culture created out of necessity. The color of their skin played a significant role in the creation of that culture because it was the basis of their oppression.
It is as diverse in opinion, thought and intelligentsia as any culture that has arisen. (I.e. it is not monolithic)
Typically, across human history, the society creates a human type and the race is a rather benign classification. Black America is different. Black America’s primary classification was race.
So when a person says they are “colorblind” it communicates less that they are not racist and more that they don’t recognize the history and the culture. Black people take offense to this because their history and culture and achievements are important.
All one needs to do to create war is invent White American Culture.
White America is not a Culture
Sorry white people but it’s true. You don’t have a “culture” – not in the sense that the “culture studies” professors have assigned.
White Americans trace their ancestry to all over Europe. Take a look at Europe. It’s kind of a mess. It’s actually a bit of an anarchy of cultures.
These are not uniform cultures. Polish people and Spanish people share little in common culturally. The Portuguese and the British. The French and the German.
“White” is not a culture.
Even white neighbors in American cities and suburbs very often have little in common as far as family traditions go.
My mother-in-law, for example, is Polish and is a first generation American. She is very much into Polish tradition.
My grandmother on my father’s side was Portuguese and my grandfather on my father’s side was an orphaned child of Spanish descent. My mom’s family is from the South.
Put all that family in a room and between the Polish and the Spaniards, the Southerners and the Portuguese, there is not a lot of cultural harmony there.
Our “white identity” is not a cohesive bond within that mix of cultures. It isn’t even considered.
And, being American, I can’t say that I “identify” with any of those ancestral cultures I delineated above. What we share, actually, are religion and an American experience.
Go spend a week with an Italian-American family and then another with an Irish-American family. Despite all their “whiteness” you’ll be hard pressed to find much commonality in an ancestral-cultural sense.
Speaking of Italians – even white Italians in different areas of Italy can’t even understand each other while speaking Italian! Italian has a bunch of Italian cultures in Italy – none of which feel bonded because they are “white”.
This non-Whiteness (lol) was known at the founding and is one of the reasons behind the Electoral College as an institution.
Though super dominantly white, the states each had different discernible ways of life – different culture. The electoral college was created so the Federal government could not so easily affect those.
So you can agree with your green haired friends that the electoral college was invented by white people for the benefit of white people….in order to protect them from OTHER white people!
The unifying aspect of white people has not been their race or place of origin, but religion. This is expressed quite well in early definitions – the 1828 definition of “ethnic” where race is not a factor, but religion is, is an example.
Many white societies – the French in particular – the imperialist nations – did spend some time trying to prove the races they subjugated were inferior in some manner. (Necessary that justification be concocted for committing cruel acts.)
Since the 17th century efforts to categorize humans and classify them and rank them existed. Notably those efforts were not really looked much upon. That’s my assumption, at least. Certainly none of the nomenclature of those efforts made it into our earliest dictionaries. Exclusion of other people was still primarily on the basis of religion in the early 1800s.
Famously, however, in the 1850s, a Frenchman coined and declared the Aryan race superior. And while some cheered this “discovery”, even then the majority of white skinned nations did not rally and build a culture centered around their shared heredity. (In fact, the opposite occurred). And the Aryan nation that did eventually form and credit this work (nearly a full century later) was defeated…by other white nations.
“White people” can sometimes be a useful generalization in a Platonic realism sort of way. So don’t be offended when people talk about “white people”. #NotAll is usually assumed right up until your lily white Neanderthal ass gets butt-hurt (lol). Then all bets are off.
“White” is not a culture.
But America does have a dominant culture
The culture of America is a consumer culture. It is a class. The American Middle Class, built in the Industrial Age.
If culture is defined as customs, arts, social institutions, etc. then the dominant “culture” of America is its middle class.
“The American Dream”, “go to school”, “be a moderate success” and “work and try to save some money before you die” and “pass it off to your kids” as ideals are class-related ideals. They are not race-related ideals.
Historically, this Middle Class has been predominately White, and has even at times leveraged race in efforts to keep economic advantages, but it has also excluded white people of certain nations and religions and social standings and educational deficiency.
The demographics have been what the demographics have been. One cannot say the defining factor of this culture is “whiteness” even if it’s a majority characteristic.
Examine the idea that “White supremacy can inhabit black skin” and you’ll see really what this means is a black person is viewed as having subscribed primarily to middle class values and ideals.
This is why Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas are revered as great black Americans by the middle class, but not viewed as pinnacles of Black Culture.
They represent a different culture. Not a white culture, but a middle class culture.
None of this is to say that Black Culture is above or below the Middle Class. They are just different cultures with different value systems and a lot in common, actually.
This is the inherent difference between reality and dialectics.
Dialectics demand that two things are compared and in opposition. But there is no real comparison, and no inherent opposition, between “Black Culture” and “Middle Class Culture”.
The trick of the Progressive has been to define “Middle Class Culture” as “white culture”, and then ascribe to it racist motivations and intent.
The middle class is famously reactionary and slow to change so it is a very easy target for such criticisms.
The Middle Class reacts and pushes back against change. It is timid and stubborn. The Middle Class has reacted against integration and Irishmen, and against the Chinese. It’s favored immigration, and then hated immigration. It’s favored unions and not favored unions and has favored them again. The Middle Class culture is an economy culture. The real target of communism has always been economy.
Through manipulating languages and obfuscating history, they’ve twisted up class and culture as inseparable from race. The idea of “white culture” is a modern invention. A designation created for the purposes of creating racial warfare to further culturally destructive ends.
Inspect what it really means to “destroy white supremacy” and you’ll see it means to disestablish the middle class and the institutions that serve and support the middle class. (Same as if you inspect what it really means to “deconstruct the patriarchy” or “reject heteronormativity”.)
Why Pro-Black Movements are Fought
To elevate a downtrodden people to a higher state requires purpose and unification. This is obvious to anyone who cares to analyze history.
Black people, in racial unification, championing black interests and proclaiming black purposes are often attacked or rejected by white people. (I know…#NotAll…)
More precisely, they are often attacked or rejected by the Middle Class culture.
The reasons for this are elementary.
Information, to be evaluated, must be compared to other known information. That just seems to be how the mind works.
White people in America, not having a “white cultural identity”, can only compare a racial unification to past attempts of some white sects to establish a racial identity.
This is why you get idiocies such as “the Black Panthers are like the KKK but for black people”.
Because of the reality of history, and how it’s been taught, and propaganda, white people fall straight into dialectics and miss a very important distinction.
“Pro-Black” movements are not about establishing black racial supremacy. They are about improving Black Culture.
If whites in society cared to look at it through the cultural lens instead of the racial angle, they would find, historically, plenty of similar unifications in their own history, but on the basis of religion and social standing.
The original pilgrimage from Britain and the American revolution are examples. Call the first “Protestant voluntary separatism” movement (lol), and the second the “the voluntary separatism of disenfranchised colonials”.
Those desires to elevate and substantiate their cultures are more in alignment with the modern Pro-Black movement than the ideals of white racial supremacy.
But, whipped up and frenzied on the subject of “race”, they can only compare a “Black movement” to a “White movement” and the only “White movements” available for inspection have been hateful movements.
Conflating “race” with “culture” is the problem.
Race and culture are so thoroughly confused, and have been made inseparable by the lexicon, people can’t conceive of “pro-Black” without “pro-White”, and thus “anti-White” and “anti-Black” respectively. It’s reaction-based thinking. That’s all it is.
Adding to the confusion, unfortunately, pro-black messages have also been co-opted by Progressives and Conservatives alike.
Consider “Black Lives Matter” and “Blexit”. All I can say here is you can tell a grifter from the real deal always. A grifter can only talk in memes, bromides and aphorisms.
BLM and Blexit alike will attack, or at best not support, a true pro-Black message.
BLM will not support a pro-Black message UNLESS that message advocates for communism. (Here is the “about” page. Read it for a good lol.)
Blexit will not support a pro-Black message. For their funding they have to push approved talking points. They are seemingly only allowed to offend black culture, if they are allowed to offend anyone.
No matter their rhetoric, Blexit is a pro-middle class movement. No matter their rhetoric, BLM is an anti-middle class movement.
This is dialectical materialism hard at work.
The purpose of this is to create and swell the ranks of white identity groups. It’s why media is so eager to drag those sorts people out of obscurity and put a spotlight on them.
I personally believe that Blexit is actually controlled opposition.
Blexit disparages black culture and makes it okay for white conservatives to do so as well. Instead of addressing social problems in the black community with conservative solutions, they pretend those problems don’t exist – or exist only because of the voting patterns of “enslaved thinkers” (black folk).
Blexit will advance a concept like, “Why are people talking about white supremacy and not black-on-black crime?” and then turn around and immediately distance itself from and disparage pro-Black groups that do talk about and actually take meaningful action to resolve black-on-black crime, such as the Nation of Islam.
The messaging could just be “Why are we even talking about white supremacy?” The second bit of the argument is irrelevant to any discussion about the impact of so-called white supremacy.
And “Why aren’t people talking about black-on-black crime?” is disingenuous. Ever listen to rap music? Ever seen award-winning black cinema? Boyz n the Hood? Ever watch television? Ever speak to any black Church or civic leader in a black community? Ever read any of the books written by reformed gang members? Ever visit any of their numerous organizations and programs they’ve created to dissuade youth from following that path? You need to be pretty god damn disconnected and disassociated to think no one talks or cares about black-on-black crime.
Anyway – Blexit is new and we’ll see how it plays out. I really shouldn’t be critical of it since I’m white and a conservative and all that.
The types of movements feared most by both sides, however, are voluntary separation type movements. Even though “reverse racism doesn’t exist”, Progressives will call black people who want to separate from white people racist. (If you aren’t on the chess board you can’t be a pawn.)
In each of these articles I have been suggesting some solutions. You can take them with a grain of salt as they aren’t really fully formed ideas. The overriding principle, really, is to not participate in the game. “Be above dialectics”.
1. Support pro-black: My first suggestion is to support any pro-Black movement that is not also anti-White.
And I don’t mean “white man is the devil and we should have no dealings with him”. That’s not “anti-White”. “I hate white people because history and fuck them” is also not “anti-White”. “Europeans fucked animals and neanderthal white people need laws to prevent them from degenerate activities” – lol… None of that is “anti-White”. That’s just talking some shit. Have a thicker skin.
Anti- means “Opposed to; undoing.”
“Anti-white” is something like, “these civic institutions were created by white people for the sole benefit of white people and we need to destroy/dismantle/abolish them“. That is anti-White. Communist.
“The nuclear family is a white construct designed to…and should be replaced by…” THAT is “anti-White”.
ADVOCATING for DESTRUCTIVE or REGRESSIVE policies on the basis of skin color is ANTI-. Talking shit about history is not ANTI-.
The reason to support these types of pro-Black movements is because they want black excellence in society and economics. Such would stimulate and contribute to competition and can only result in a net good for society economically.
If you are pro-free markets, and pro-middle class society, then you want that sector of economic development and that competition entering the fold.
Even if the group ideal is a separation from white folk, they aren’t out to destroy and replace the current society. They are out to create a new one. There is actually a sort of beauty in that if you care to see it and aren’t too pansy to be called a few names in the process.
2. History: My second suggestion is to advocate for history to be taught as a chronological study of human development. Will Durant attempted this in writing his “Story of Civilization”, but even that lacked insights and history of Africa that we have since learned.
Instead of learning “European history” and “American history” and “Black history” and “political history” and “legal history”, much could probably be gained by just starting at the beginning and telling the whole story forward insofar as possible.
There are few conflicts and circumstances facing us today that have not previously existed, or that don’t have their roots in the past. Understanding any of that can really only be done in full context.
The less history is tainted, truncated, re-contextualized or otherwise spun by vested interest, the better.
I do believe the only real solution to racial antipathies is this sort of education and an understanding of how civilizations have formed and developed, and the contributions to that history from all walks and manner of human life: religious, racial and otherwise.
3. Don’t be white: My third and final suggestion I will likely get in trouble for. This suggestion is “don’t be white”.
White is an assigned identity. It is usually assigned by the Progressive Left, or it is assigned by White Identitarians. In either case, it is assigned to further an end in a game you don’t want to play.
“White” has never been a defining factor in European culture.
Religion has been far more prominent a motivation. Social class and standing in feudal and chaste systems have as well.
Racial supremacy was a justification, which justification came after-the-fact.
The original motivations for imperialism and dominance were the same as they had ever been throughout human history. Europe just felt guilty enough about it (or was made guilty enough) to try and justify it. That doesn’t make the justification good or noble.
The Progressive Left will tell you that not considering yourself “white” is a privilege and blah blah blah blah. Some people have to worry about skin color and you don’t, blah blah… It’s all just bunk.
There is a Black Culture in America. That doesn’t mean there is a White Culture. It just means there is a Black Culture.
Be Polish, or be Danish. Be British or Spanish. Be Portuguese – any of these things. Be proud. Be Spanish Supremacists, even! Be Italian Supremacists! lol. Or be Catholic. Or be none of that and just be “American”. Be nationalistic and patriotic as fuck! But identify with an actual culture.
Any of those listed are more truthful statements as they are real cultures.
“White” is not a culture.
Don’t be “white”.
(It is okay to be white, though. Racially speaking, of course.)