The end of racial appeasement

Since the end of the Civil War, America has embarked on a policy of “racial appeasement,” or gifting minority populations with money and power to stave off the inevitable conflict brought on by diversity. As America wakes up to how easily an accusation of racism can crush a career, people are re-thinking racial appeasement and thinking instead of options to diversity.

Picture this for a movie:

On planet Raeth, injustice reigns. The ruling group, Aucascians, have oppressed the Friacans, who don’t have technology and have been in the past cruelly enslaved and used as cheap labor. When a few people of good moral character figure this out, they band together to help the Friacans gain political power. Eventually, a Friacan is elected with the promise that racial antagonism will end, Friacans and Aucascians will breed together into a new race, and peace will reign forever.

Except that it doesn’t happen. The movie doesn’t end there; instead we see the Friacan president struggling, realizing that he has to both make Friacans like him, and avoid having the Aucascians feel attacked. He starts trying to transfer wealth and power to the Friacans, which makes the Aucascians realize: now we’re the target, and soon we’ll be oppressed like the Friacans were, if we don’t do something about it.

Sound familiar?

When we elected Barack Obama, his constituents hoped for many things. The white people who voted for him were primarily young and inexperienced; 95% of black people voted for him, as did many members of other ethnic groups. They elected him for the same reason they elected Bill Clinton, which was a hope for racial reconciliation and a happy ever after story.

Instead they got an intensification of racial resentment. Race relations are probably more tense now that at any previous time except the morning after the Watts riots wound down. Both groups are slowly starting to realize: in a diverse society, one group has to be on top. Both can’t be. Even more, if you try to “raise up” one group, you’re going to do it at the expense of the other, and then they’ll hate each other.

Brushing past the insane racists (people who hate black people and consider them inferior) and insane anti-racists (who consider wanting to be of your own race to be racist) we can see that this problem has no end. The problem isn’t white people. It isn’t black people. It’s diversity.

Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the beautiful mosaics — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.

“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!” – Ann Coulter

Very few people would voice this sentiment because the populist political parties — those most popular with those who are least invested in understanding the mechanism of governance and economics — tend to group together “critics of any attribute of diversity” with “racists: those who hate black people.”

But the facade has been cracking. After Andrew Briedbart trolled the left by showing them how damaging an unsourced whisper of “racism” could be, people are starting to realize that the situation is unstable. Blacks aren’t happy; whites aren’t happy. Other ethnic groups are caught in the middle, but all ethnic groups are starting to realize that one ethnic group must rule us — trying to split the power isn’t working and cannot work.

Interestingly, the same thing is happening in Europe, where immigrants from backgrounds as varied as Turks, Arabs, Africans and Asians are finding it hard to integrate. They find themselves in ghettoes, despising the local population and in turn being despised, while governments make more laws to prevent discrimination and write more checks to subsidize them.

We’re even seeing people on the left trying to compete with the Tea Party for the white middle class vote, since not only are those people numerous, but they’re economically, socially and politically important as a creative force in America.

The Tea Party was a classic Libertarian backlash: we don’t want the entitlement state, and we don’t want a moral government telling us how to think, especially if that thinking includes a morality of self-destruction. Tea Party logic is that if other ethnic groups can demand self-serving change, so can white people, starting with the elimination of politically privileged ethnic groups.

In other words, if we’re going to be fair, we should apply the same standards to everyone. If a black person isn’t racist for wanting to marry a black person, then a white person should not be racist for wanting to marry a white person. If “black power” is socially acceptable, “white power” should be too. That’s real diversity. But it’s not what the left has been supporting; instead, in their view, only white people can be racist. That got old real fast.

Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.

The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all “people of color”—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites.

Policy makers ignored such disparities within America’s white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts. – “Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege,” James Webb, Wall Street Journal

In other words, we can’t expect to force people to be equal and we can’t fix the past by discriminating against Caucasians. This makes sense, but Webb is serving democratic interests here by trying to apply a band-aid to a situation that’s ready to explode.

Think about two salient facts:

  • Everywhere diversity has been tried, it has brought conflict and instability. This applies to diversity of ethnic/racial groups as well as religion, radical political differences, or radical leaps in ability or economic power (class/caste). People like to point to the West and say, “See, it’s working out OK, especially in Canada” forgetting that diversity on any measurable scale has only been in effect for thirty to forty years, which from a historical viewpoint is less than the blink of an eye. What does other modern and ancient history show us? That diversity causes conflict and ultimately destabilizes a nation, leaving behind a society of the third world type.
  • Different ethnic groups evolved differently. We shouldn’t worry about whether this extends to the potential or abilities of individuals, but should point out that no continent was ever completely dominated by a foreign authority. Had these continents wanted to invented technology, they could have but did not. Evidence suggests that limited efforts were made along those lines. So there’s a reason why some groups, notably Jews, Western Europeans, and North Asians succeed and still stay on top of the game: they developed along these directions and maintain the ability to do so. It’s not racist to admit this, since these are subsets of races rather than racial groups in themselves.

We can at this point either face history, and see that the diversity experiment in America is doomed to failure because someone must always rule and everyone else will rebel, or continue our “out of sight, out of mind” policy of racial appeasement. Policies of racial appeasement:

  • The welfare state. We’ll transfer money from others to you if you’re having trouble.
  • Affirmative action. We’ll put you first in line, maybe that’ll help.
  • Political correctness. We’ll insist you are magical, innocent and vital so that you become symbolically important.
  • Conflict avoidance. If a white cop shoots a black guy in Oakland, we’ll lock down the city and excuse you if you riot. It’s not your fault; you were wronged.
  • Anti-discrimination legislation. As much a handout as legal redress, this enables you to sue someone if you don’t get hired or rented to, even if you’re incompetent or dangerous, as some individuals of all ethnies and races are.
  • We’ll elect one of you. Barack Obama has less experience, a past with less documentation or evidence of competence, and less experience with decision-making than any president in history. He was elected because he was black and we hoped that would end the race debacle.

Racial appeasement ran its course because it appeared to be the path of least resistance. After a disastrous civil war, no one wanted to bother with partitioning the United States, or even repatriating its former slaves with compensation. Through the next generations, race riots were commonplace about every decade, and appeasement was the policy there, too.

Horrible racist injustices did happen, as did cruelty, but the perpetrators have been punished where caught, and now are thoroughly marginalized especially after WWII, when we defeated that big evil racist, Hitler. For every incident, an appeasement was tabled, until we get to the point where government looks first to hire minorities, businesses are scrambling to hire minorities, all of our movies feature positive stereotypes of minorities, and we’ve elected a black man as president. When does one appease enough?

As the dust settled after Obama’s election, a sinking feeling set in among Americans. What if this didn’t do the trick? What if this is an ongoing problem instead of something we can solve with one gesture of appeasement? As Neville Chamberlain found out when appeasing Hitler just delayed the inevitable war, appeasement doesn’t work. It doesn’t work for blacks, or whites, or anyone else. And so the myth of racial appeasement starts to crumble.

4 Comments

  1. […] Brett Stevens – “The End of Racial Appeasement” […]

  2. Stan says:

    Believing one race is superior to another regarding categorical specifics doesn’t necessarily make a person racist. There is after all scientific evidence of such claims.

  3. misplacedmongoloid says:

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18113565434
    A group of dedicated nationalists facebook has forgotten to banish

  4. Reginald Gillette says:

    Brett, you’re mostly on point, but…

    “Instead they got an intensification of racial resentment. Race relations are probably more tense now that at any previous time …”

    Probably? I disagree to the fullest. Now Whites can say, “I’m racist? We gave you a Black president!” And Blacks can say, “That’s okay/fuck you: we’ve got a Black president now.”

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.368 seconds