What Is Racism? Part 3

Godsize

Active member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
1,204
Likes
2
|
"What Is Racism? Part 3"
#1
Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund suffer from a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-white group--a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood--is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when whites have been reduced to a minority has "diversity" been achieved.

Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-white. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity."

It is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost comical to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.
What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs and schooling?

Would Mexico--or any other non-white nation--tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet white Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.

There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of "hating" any other group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only object to racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.

Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, white people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.

Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative-action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?

No, it is the white enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history.

Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow "hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more than they love their neighbors, but this does not mean they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They wish only to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.

What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."
What, then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of peoplehood that have defined nations since the beginning of history--but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2003
Messages
692
Likes
1
|
"What Is Racism? Part 3"
#2
let me be the first to say that is a horrible essay, no offense to godsize, we're all entitled to our opinion, it's constitutionally guranteed. this article is a facile, anecdotal and evidentially selective piece that uses loosely defined perceptions to lope towards an obviously forcasted point. some statements are factual, but everything is painted within the author's very specific agenda. that kind of thinking is a pile of garbage, in my opinion, and highly backwards. most super-conservative views, such as the above essay, are rooted in the deep cultural fears and general anger that pervades certain populations within white america.

this strange fear that grips so many white people, the notion that they will be overrun by minority factions, baffles me. i can only see it stemming from a dislike of other ethnicites and cultures, rather than a true love of liberty and freedom as the article attempts to portray. garbage, just pure, divisive, unconstructive garbage.

try looking beyond skin color for two seconds and observing things like socio-economic status, fairness and a truly balanced look at the issues. white people are hardly being victimized in society and suffer very few consequences of this imagined minority advantage, which the author intends to convince us is an impending threat. it's just a long-winded, underhanded justification for racist attitudes, and quite clearly the type of article that preaches to the converted.

a piece of writing like that does nothing to address the problems presented, nor does it seek understanding or insight. it is inflamitory in that it stirs the passions of those that already have a general feeling of resentment towards minority movements and organizations. useless and simplistic. this is political media, meant to enforce a viewpoint and it does so, but in this case i couldn't see the views presented as possibly being any more foolish and incorrect.
 
Joined
Jul 18, 2003
Messages
253
Likes
0
|
"What Is Racism? Part 3"
#3
You have to seperate real racism from people manipulating racism for their benefit.

"Politicial correctness" was the term invented to describe when things like reverse racism are passed off as justified.

Racism is a logical fallacy, in that it imputs into the individual, the average characteristics of his race. But in reality, there is more variation between individuals than there is between racial averages.

So you can easily find a high IQ black man versus a low IQ white man, even if a previous study found that blacks, on average, have a lower IQ than whites. (Or that asians have higher IQ's than whites, etc.)

Since individual variation is greater than racial variation, it isn't logical to presume anything about an individual based on his race.

The thesis is unclear if it means to attack against the "politically correct" or is just another stab at us-versus-them white-versus-black cheerleading.

I think we should attack bad ideas like PC, but avoid us-versus-them advocacies. They usually end up being logically flawed.
 

Godsize

Active member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
1,204
Likes
2
|
"What Is Racism? Part 3"
#4
Ok, cool. I'm glad that there are some replies to this essay. Just for the record, I didn't write it. I found it on some southern pride type of site while looking for WWII propaganda. I read it and thought it would be interesting fodder for debate, so I plopped it down here.

I'm happy that there are people who are open to discussion on this topic, since I posted this same article at Thunder's Place, and they boned it before anyone could even read it or make a comment. Just because it had the word "racism" in the title, it was taken out.

That's why I dig this forum... it's a lot more edgy than Thunder's and I don't have a moderator up my ass every time I post something "contoversial"...well, at least not yet.

Thanks and keep those opinions rolling in.
 

Godsize

Active member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
1,204
Likes
2
|
"What Is Racism? Part 3"
#6
Yeah, it is rather long.

It's not imperative that anyone comments on it, I just figured I'd throw it in to give peeps something to read if they're bored enough.

I promise I'll write a drug review or something else fun real soon. :)
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
20
Likes
0
|
"What Is Racism? Part 3"
#7
think bobbdobbs really has the main point here.People should be more aware of the individual than of a whole culture.
If i dislike a white man(anothere nasionality) as a person does not make me rascist.If i dislike a black man does that make me rascist? I think not.If i dislike a woman does that make me sexist?
What if she happens to be black as well:banghead:
In Southern Africa if black groups are fighting each other its called 'ethnical differences'...
Long live PC!

 

Godsize

Active member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
1,204
Likes
2
|
"What Is Racism? Part 3"
#8
I actually think you're wrong on that one, man.

Let's say you are white, and you dislike a person, and that person happens to be black, you will be looked upon as a racist in this country...and perhaps even in other countries. Even if that person is a real asshole, you won't be able to escape the accusations of racism.

On the flip side, it is seen as normal to dislike whites if you are not white. No racism there.

I could never wear a T-shirt that says "White And Proud", not that I would, but for the sake of argument, I never could. Although if you see a black dude wearing a "Black And Proud" shirt, people are like, "Right on, man!!"

It's my opinion that you are not allowed to be white anymore in America. (If being "white" means living in a trailer park and wearing a Marlboro T shirt, then forget it).

I know this is a divisive topic and probably not worth discussing because it always causes arguments.

As soon as I get my hands on some new drugs or some new pussy, I'll tell you guys all about it since that's a lot more fun.
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
87
Likes
0
|
"What Is Racism? Part 3"
#9
My favorite one of all:

When there is a black person who hates white people, it is called....

"Reverse racism."

Wha-? OK, let's think that one through. If that is "reverse racism", then what is "racism"? Whites hating blacks?

Let me get this straight - the definition of "reverse racism" is blacks hating whites, therefore making the definition of "racism", "whites hating blacks?" May I see the dictionary please?

Ridiculous. Blacks hating whites is "racism", not "reverse racism". The reverse of racism would be, uh, love.

All racial groups are, on average, equal IMO. We are all equally hateful.
 

Godsize

Active member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
1,204
Likes
2
|
"What Is Racism? Part 3"
#10
Yeah, I also hate that "reverse racism" schtick... like white people were the ones who invented it. Well, if the black man was the first man, then didn't he invent it? *Heh heh heh* I dunno. I don't think anyone is above being predjudiced to something. If they say they are above predjudice, they are full of shit.

My hatred of people in general is based more on behavior than what nationality they happen to be. Copping out to stereotypes is just too easy, even though you can bet your balls that stereotypes are very real and they DO exist. I've met a few in my day, shit, I'M probably one too!

But if you're an asshole, you're an asshole. Regardless of race, color, or creed.
 
Top Bottom