Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Segregation is Alive and Well, Thanks to Progressives
This country has tolerated the attacks of Progressives who experience great satisfaction in calling Republicans and Conservatives racist. We are now seeing the downside of their crusade, as segregation becomes a reality once more. The history of Progressive racism has been ignored for many years, but the support of the Left for various forms of racism in the past can be tied to the call for segregation today, especially on college campuses. It is a frightening and ugly picture.
We need to take a look at the history that connects Democrats and the Left to racism. The most obvious relationship became apparent after the Civil War during the period of Reconstruction. The Democrats in the South were outraged about the freed slaves who chose to support the Republican party; after all, Abraham Lincoln’s declarations of emancipation were carried out by President U.S. Grant and both were heroes of the black community. As a result, Democrats essentially waged a southern war against blacks who became politically active; they brutally attacked and murdered blacks who met to become politically active as Republicans. President Grant was torn about the appropriateness of sending federal troops to regain order in the states, but it was clear that another war was on the horizon if he didn’t. The Ku Klux Klan was formed in 1866 and was active well into the 20th century. It was one of the most vicious terrorist and white supremacist groups that this country has ever seen.
Meanwhile, we can point to a number of “scholars” who supported the progressive cause and were racists and eugenicists:
Progressives spearheaded the eugenics movement, dedicated to reducing the reproduction of supposedly ‘inferior’ individuals and races. The eugenics movement spawned Planned Parenthood, among other groups. In academia, there were 376 courses devoted to eugenics in 1920 . . .
Progressive intellectuals who crusaded against the admission of immigrants from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, branding them as genetically inferior, included many prominent academic scholars — such as heads of such scholarly organizations as the American Economic Association and the American Sociological Association.
Perhaps the most celebrated racist in our government was President Woodrow Wilson, who publicly made racist comments:
[Reconstruction government was detested] not because the Republican Party was dreaded but because the dominance of an ignorant and inferior race was justly dreaded.
Another telling quote:
In the matter of Chinese and Japanese coolie immigration, I stand for the national policy of exclusion. We cannot make a homogeneous population out of people who do not blend with the Caucasian race… Oriental Coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson. (Italics added.)
We finally arrived at a time when the country realized that we needed to take formal steps against segregation. Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, 1955 declared that separate but equal schooling in public schools was unconstitutional. Efforts were made to correct segregated schools over the years, with mixed results. Still, the Supreme Court moved the process forward.
Another unfortunate step that we took to disempower and denigrate the black population of this country was the War on Poverty. This period taught black America that they couldn’t be successful without government assistance; that they were incapable of moving up in society without the help of others; and perhaps most important, they were entitled to this assistance, due to their grievances coming out of slavery (even though slavery had been ended over 100 years ago).
So what is the connection of these past grievances to the present state of blacks in America, especially on the university campuses?
The Left has finally convinced black students that non-blacks can’t be trusted. They tell our black citizens that white people see them as different, inferior, and they must unite as blacks to protect themselves. Most of this discourse comes from the Progressive programs of the past. Today, however, the attacks on non-blacks have escalated, and it’s no surprise, according to James Huffman at the Hoover Institution:
Whatever privilege students may have before they arrive at college, the reality of American higher education today is that students of color have been privileged by their institutions in ways that invite segregation and differential treatment, whether done in the name of reparations for past discrimination, as affirmative action to overcome societally imposed disadvantages, or in the belief that celebrating and encouraging differences improves education for everyone. There should be no surprise that students of color often self-segregate and are seen as different by their fellow students.
Just what is happening on college campuses that is establishing segregation on campuses?
Black college students across the country have demanded that they be segregated from white peers, calling for ‘safe spaces’ on campuses meant only for so-called students of color.
The requests for segregated spaces are found among some of the demand lists put forth by students who took part in protests this fall alleging their campuses are oppressive, discriminatory, and represent institutionalized racism.
The demands have been presented to campus administrators and are chronicled by TheDemands.org, a website run by a racial advocacy group called the Black Liberation Collective.
Not all of the 76 demand lists, each from a different university, seek segregated spaces — but several do.
It’s impossible to know how many universities are acquiescing to these demands. And of course, there are many ways to describe safe spaces. But a number of colleges are dedicating specific buildings or organizations to blacks-only, as well as dormitories and special events.
These demands can be credited to the Progressive movement, as it supposedly strives to help those who have been shut out or left behind.
The discouraging and even frightening conclusion we can draw from these activities is that they encourage segregation and emphasize differences. They do nothing to bring people together in activities, discussions, and debates. There is no exchange of ideas or outcomes of understanding. In the absence of communication, misunderstandings, misconceptions, fear, and anger will only grow. Racial tensions in this country will continue to broaden and escalate.
As James Huffman of the Hoover Institution states:
The concept of white privilege is a logical outgrowth of the concept of institutional racism. In reaction to the now quaint notion that intent to discriminate must be proven to establish illegal race discrimination, lawyers and race scholars came up with the concept of institutional racism. The idea is that racism is so deeply rooted in American society that it persists even amongst institutions that have made genuine efforts to correct for any intentional past discrimination.
But there is nothing subtle about the most pervasive form of racial discrimination prevailing at most American colleges and universities today. It is done in the name of lifting up those who have been discriminated against in the past. But there should be little wonder that the intended beneficiaries of this allegedly benign discrimination feel themselves isolated and treated differently. By design, universities have isolated them and treated them differently.
Such a tragic outcome for those, black and white, who sacrificed to overcome racism.
What do you foresee regarding segregation and racism in this country?
Published in Culture
Wow. Good job on taking the comment I tried very hard to be diplomatic and kind while writing and completely straw manning it.
What a rewrite of Stina,s comment. I hope Gumby, you just mis interpreted it.
This is why I think we are doomed. We try to talk about these issues and those on our side throw the race card. I have seen it in other threads.
@gumbymark, I don’t think Stina was saying what you’ve indicated. I do think she generalizes about the formation of strong identity groups in a way that we differ with each other. I think Jews form strong identity groups for the reasons you indicate, Stina. But there are different kinds of strong identity groups. I believe that technically they have similarities, but Jews also have a long, long history of grouping together to simply exist. The goal is not to exclude others as much as it is to preserve their heritage. It isn’t done out of hatred, or a feeling of superiority, but rather to live peacefully. I think that white nationalist groups also suggest a superiority toward others. Yes, others can form their own groups, but they are all inferior to the white nationalist groups. They are also often anti-Semitic, and that is why Jews protest against them. (I’ve got to get back to your comment, so I’m going to post this and come back.)
Addition: I also think you see white nationalist groups through a clouded lens. The groups I know of breed hate. You made this comment:
Most white nationalists support Jewish Zionism.
Have you thought about the reason? It’s to get rid of the Jews in this country.
So yes, all groups have a right to form under any auspices they wish. But that doesn’t mean we can’t condemn them and their motives.
Let’s keep the discussion civil. I think it’s well worthwhile!
Susan, Very well done. A huge, complicated subject with thousands of tributaries for discussion.
As a nation we have turned Martin Luther King’s call for racial equality on it’s head; our government and the powers that be now judge people largely on the color of their skin and not on the content of their character. We have become Jim Crow in reverse, where a tiny bit of visible black african descent entitles one to be an elevated victim deserving of a multitude of preferential treatment, with similar entitlement of those other people of races with darker skin color.
This is the new Social Justice. It is not a system of justice that values actual justice, fairness or equality; it is a corrupt system that values helping your people, your “tribe” and your friends at the expense of others you deem unworthy no matter what the excuse or evidence of crime with more than a little tribal score settling thrown in for good measure. It is a system of pure hate; hate of the other not of your tribe.
This Social Justice system of Hate seeks to overturn and has been largely successful so far at eradicating much of our Constitutional rights to life, liberty and happiness in a incredibly ill-conceived dimwitted and foolish effort to bring back Tribal animosity, jealousy and warfare, just like of the days of old where brutal warlords ruled the land and the populace had much to fear. This will not end well unless we forthrightly and unapologetically turn this around to again be ruled by a system of real justice and the Constitutional Rule of Law. The alternative is a descent into a hellish nightmare much like Venezuela is now facing with a rule not of law but by barbarism, murder, mayhem and an almost unfathomable in it’s cruelty desperately poverty ridden chaos.
Thanks, @unsk! I agree. That’s why I thinking lumping in all loyalty groups is not correct. The Jews unite for reasons different from other “tribes” and hatred is not at the center. Very good points you make!
I don’t know. I only follow one nationalist consistently, so this may be true.
There is a lot of angst towards other groups in there, but not stemming from what you suggest. It may be so in other groups.
My views were largely shaped on my own as a teenager. There wasn’t any influence except the old testament, especially the account of King Hezekiah… which is why my views track so closely with those of a Zionist (Hazony).
He is far more graceful about the formation of nations and nation states and grouping in clans and tribes than anyone else on the public stage so far. I highly recommend his book if you are interested in a well thought out counter to the accepted mode of thought.
I think it’s unfair to paint all people who are attracted to nationalism or tribalism as being solely motivated by hate and not self-preservation.
Some may be, but it isn’t necessary that all are. You can support Jewish nationalism and be sympathetic to other nationalisms.
Susan, I don’t know what “most white nationalists” think. “White nationalist” appears to be used quite regularly as a synonym for White Supremacist and neo-Nazi.
Susan, I also don’t think that you have evidence that Jews “unite for reasons different from other ‘tribes.’.” What different reasons? And when you say that, for the Jews, “hatred is not at the center,” this seems to imply that you think that hatred is “at the center” for other “tribes.” Perhaps you don’t mean this — I’m inferring it (the legal jargon for this type of deduction is expresio unius).
I think that Stina has an excellent point. Jews want to unite to preserve their unique culture and faith. Many other minority groups seem to be claiming the same right. But as Stina correctly points out, if the non-hyphenated American majority wants to do the same thing, it’s immediately equated with hatred and Nazism.
This is a clear double standard.
I think that many in the non-hyphenated majority are understandably and justly frustrated about this state of affairs. This is the group that, by and large, accepted Pastor King’s vision — which was not something really new, but was a magnificent enunciation of a founding principle of America. The response from many other groups has been, in effect, in-group discrimination and favoritism for me, but not for thee.
I think that this is responsible for a significant portion of the support for Trump among the white working class in particular, and among non-hyphenated Americans more broadly.
Well said Jerry.
Actually I’m only referring to those who call themselves “white nationalists.” I don’t know what they all think or how they feel, but I’m skeptical. I’m not sure what you are referring to when you say “Jewish nationalism”: the religion, ethnicity, Zionism or all of them. I don’t believe it’s a term commonly used. Not all Jews are Zionists, though.
@jerrygiordano, I think we are talking about different things, and drawing conclusions about what others mean. (I’m doing it, too.) So let me try to clarify what I’m saying.
Susan, I also don’t think that you have evidence that Jews “unite for reasons different from other ‘tribes.’.” What different reasons? And when you say that, for the Jews, “hatred is not at the center,” this seems to imply that you think that hatred is “at the center” for other “tribes.” Perhaps you don’t mean this — I’m inferring it (the legal jargon for this type of deduction is expresio unius).
Jews are different from other tribes because they organize around the Torah. I don’t know if other groups have hatred at their center. But as I said before, if they are white nationalists, I think they partially function out of hating other groups that are different. Jews do not function out of hating other groups: we may resent some of them, but we don’t hate them or want to get rid of them.
I think that Stina has an excellent point. Jews want to unite to preserve their unique culture and faith. Many other minority groups seem to be claiming the same right. But as Stina correctly points out, if the non-hyphenated American majority wants to do the same thing, it’s immediately equated with hatred and Nazism.
I don’t know which groups you’re referring to. I’m worried about this country being run over by other groups such as Islamists and others who refuse to integrate, at least to some degree with our culture. People who don’t want to be associated with America. I’m with you there. I think most of us on the right are patriots and support American nationalism. Maybe I need to refer to the “white nationalist hate groups” to be accurate; they are groups who reject the government and rule of law and any other group that isn’t white. They are certainly able to organize as long as they obey the law.
I think that many in the non-hyphenated majority are understandably and justly frustrated about this state of affairs. This is the group that, by and large, accepted Pastor King’s vision — which was not something really new, but was a magnificent enunciation of a founding principle of America. The response from many other groups has been, in effect, in-group discrimination and favoritism for me, but not for thee.
Again, I don’t know who you are talking about. I put myself in this group as well as identifying as a Jew. There must be a piece I’m missing in this discussion. I think labels are getting in our way. At least I hope I’m clarifying my thoughts!
Zionism and/or preservation of Jewish faith/culture/bloodlines is what I consider Jewish nationalism.
The Amish would be an example of the preservation of culture without the formation or preservation of a nation state (what Zionism is).
To some degree, I’d accept that nationalism does not require the formation of a state, but does promote some form of self-determination and self-governance, even in a limited capacity.
I consider the original United States to be the union of 13 nation states, different nations united in a common goal – their right to self-determination.
You may not be a fan of Wikipedia, but I found this definition of white nationalism:
White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity.[2][3][4] Its proponents identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation.[5] White nationalists say they seek to ensure the survival of the white race, and the cultures of historically white states. They hold that white people should maintain their majority in majority-white countries, maintain their political and economic dominance, and that their cultures should be foremost.[4] Many white nationalists believe that miscegenation, multiculturalism, immigration of nonwhites and low birth rates among whites are threatening the white race,[6] and some believe these things are being promoted as part of an attempted white genocide.[6]
Analysts describe white nationalism as overlapping with white supremacism and white separatism.[7][4][6][8][9][10] White nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or subset of, white supremacism, and the two have been used interchangeably by journalists and analysts.[8][11] White separatism is the pursuit of a “white-only state”; supremacism is the belief that white people are superior to nonwhites and should dominate them,[6][8][9] taking ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism.[12] White nationalists generally avoid the term “supremacy” because it has negative connotations.[13][14]
Critics argue that the term “white nationalism” and ideas such as white pride exist solely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy, and that most white nationalist groups promote racial violence.
Susan, way to many are lumped in this category. Do you or anyone else have numbers for this sort ? I believe this is so small only the FBI know . Charlottesville should have brought multitudes from the entire region. Were there even a 100 ?
The right does what the left does with this. “You are all a bunch of haters and racist.
Kevin, I have no idea how many there are. What difference does it make? I suspect you don’t know either, whether the dangerous, hateful ones are few or many. I’m not out to get them, good guys or bad. What would you call yourself? I feel like I’m caught in a discussion and I don’t know how I got here? Are you suggesting that there are lots of people who would call themselves white nationalists who are harmless? If there are people who call themselves nationalists, they are fine with me. As long as any of them and all of them follow the rule of law. How did I get here . . . ?
Fair question. I defended a position against what I saw as an unfair characterization and it spun out from there.
Would you rather I take this conversation to a new post?
If not, I’ll tackle that wiki article (which is pretty fair and balanced) and the other questions.
What I am saying is. Because someone wants to be with their own kind, that does not make them a hater. Only white people are called haters and racist for wanting to be separate.
If I wish to preserve the American culture that I grew up in, and fear it being overrun by 3rd worlders who no nothing of it, or how liberty is preserved and are going to vote for the socialsm they know. Then many think me a racest.
I’ll leave it up to you. I’d like to be in on the discussion and it certainly connects to the original topic, but you might want to manage your own post. Your choice. ;-)
Kevin, I fully agree with your thinking! And I know we’re not racists! In fact, I like to be on Ricochet with sensible, Conservatives. And you know the Left would call me a hater! Seriously, we’re on the same side. I do think the labels are causing us some grief.
I would add one caveat. If the third-worlder legally immigrates and embraces everything America is about, I would welcome them. I think you are saying the same.
Stina, I encourage you to write that post. The discussion should be epic. Bring your helmet, for there is sure to be
INCOMING
I’m bad at starting posts and I don’t think we’d get many comments above us 3 (or 4), so if you don’t mind, I’d rather stay here. Thank you for being so gracious.
There are those that do “espouse” the belief that white is a race. The guy I follow does not. He refers to White supremacists and white-ethno nationalists as alt-retards :p
The only reason why white is a race is because the left lumped us all together. Skin color is the easiest way to identify, but it is very shallow. In that, I think the wiki is less than accurate – the formation of politics surrounding minority groups treats white Americans as a whole, oppressive group. In this, white nationalists are defined by the outsider. Mr. Hazony notes that the formation of nations does not need to be biological, but as long as they share in adversity and success, they can form, at the very least, a coalition of nations. So it could be argued that the left’s antagonism to all Americans with white skin color are responsible for a white nationalist/tribe/identity.
Germany, Italy, France, England, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the original 13 colonies – they are all historically white in “race” while also being ethnically diverse. When they talk about preserving majority status, they are simply espousing a belief in the right of self-determination. Others may join them (as have others joined Israel), but with the intent to either fully adopt their way of life or to respect their right to self-determination, which Hazony claims to be one of the founding principles of the western political order.
(I’m not done :p)
This is very true. They are used interchangeably and it leads to confusion and unfounded accusations.
White supremacism is a belief that spans from all the rest of mankind was made to serve white people all the way to morally and biologically better in some way.
If you think Jews are morally or culturally or intellectually superior to other peoples, would you characterize yourself as a supremacist? Would you characterize others who hold that view to be supremacists?
So why, when the state of African or Central American nations is shown to be not as pleasant as the state of America or Britain do we consider that supremacy?
Would pointing out that the NBA is full of a very athletic ethnicity be pointing out superiority or inferiority?
But also, there is a feeling of loyalty and passion for your own culture that colors how we perceive it and that of others. My mom is the best mom in the world. I’m sure you think the same… but not about my mom ;)
Critics do argue this. The question is, are they right to argue that? How would we know?
Yeah, bad people exist. But bad people exist regardless of ideology. There isn’t anything inherently unique to nationalism and pride and preference in your own people that suggests inherent violence.
I’ll write the epic post when I finish hazony’s book and after I do more research into my own gut-reaction against the monroe doctrine and FDR / globalism from high school.
I also want to chase some of the rabbit trails from VoN’s references.
I just got back from my workout, and I agree with Kevin, simply because it’s a unique topic (I haven’t seen it here), because you have so much energy around it, and because I think many people will be interested! If it’s helpful, we can continue to talk a bit here, but I think you should do the post!
Susan, you were the one who asserted that Jews “unite for reasons different from other ‘tribes.'” You specify this as the Torah. I stated it more broadly — Jews unite around their unique culture and faith. Technically, I don’t think it’s correct that Jews unite around just the Torah, though I understand that the Torah is the most important part of the Jewish Bible. But Jews also unite around Joshua, Judges, Kings, the Psalms, and the Prophets, don’t they? And the Talmud, for that matter.
By the way, there’s plenty of hate in the Jewish Bible. Good old Elijah didn’t exactly go easy on the priests of Baal. Jehu’s (partial) restoration of the faith of the northern kingdom (Israel) was brutal. Even David waged unrelenting war on the enemies of Israel. I’m not being critical — I believe the same things, and I believe that they were justified.
Here’s where I find hypocrisy. Jews — and many other groups — can have their separate synagogues and clubs. But a club that excludes Jews is bigoted and evil. A Jew — like Ben Shapiro — can reject a marriage between his relative and a non-Jew. But a Christian who doesn’t want his daughter marrying a Jew is anti-Semitic and evil. That is a double-standard.
I’m not advocating for exclusion of Jews. I’m pointing out that the Jewish claim to legitimately exclude others is inconsistent with the rules that apparently apply to others.
There are other groups who do this — black-only groups, or Hispanic-only groups, or Asian-only groups, or Muslim-only groups. These are all supposed to be fine, for everybody except the non-hyphenated American majority.
But, you may say, Jews need to do this to preserve their culture. This might be true for the non-hyphenated American majority, as well.
These double-standards create fertile soil for the growth of white supremacist views.
I’ve been trying to discuss this state of affairs. I’m trying to describe the frustration of the non-hyphenated American. Let’s use college as an example.
When I was in college and law school, I recall that there were special scholarships available for various racial minorities — blacks and Hispanics specifically, probably others — and for women. But the idea of having a scholarship specifically for a generic “white,” or for a man, was considered discriminatory and beyond the pale.
I do not recall this applying, one way or the other, to religious groups, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise. I know that it applied to certain preferred racial and ethnic groups. But the principle is the same.
The rule seems to be that if you claim some sort of minority status, you can exclude others, favor your own group, and talk about “pride.” But if you’re just a white guy, and you want to do the same thing, you’re a neo-Nazi.
We’re not really disagreeing, but according to Wikipedia and http://www.myjewishlearning.com, Torah is specifically used for the first five books (and is synonymous with Chumash), while the entire body of the Jewish Bible is the Tanakh, an acronym of Torah, the Prophets (Nevi’im), and the Writings (Ketuvim).
Not a big deal, but I actually pay attention to the Hebrew terminology — to an extent. For example, I didn’t know the Hebrew Nevi’im or Ketuvim without looking them up, but my sense was the Jews divided what I call the Old Testament into Torah, Prophets, and Writings.
It’s not a criticism of you, but it is certainly confusing to use the word “Torah” to mean both: (1) the entire written Jewish Bible, plus the Talmud, plus oral tradition, and (2) just the five books of Moses.
Thanks, Jerry. My error. Although keep in mind that the Torah is the only divine book. At least I got that part right.
1 Kings 18. Elijah vs. the 450 prophets of Baal. He taunted them mercilessly — “At noon Elijah began to taunt them, saying, ‘Shout louder, for he [Baal] is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or occupied, or on a journey. Perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened!'” I’m told that the Hebrew actually says something like “maybe he’s sitting on the toilet.” Hilarious.
Here is the climax (verses 36-40):
If you want to see prayers for God to pour out His vengeance on David’s enemies, start with Psalms 3 (“Arise, Lord! Deliver me, my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked”) and Psalm 5: