No topic has proved more divisive than race and the equally sensitive topic of how to address the various groups — Lapps, Mongols, Gypsies, Africans, Indians and Chinese — who appeared among us. An article about confusion over racism shows us how the topic has never been a question of racism versus tolerance, but of assimilation versus separation:
The first cited use of â€œracismâ€ in The Oxford English Dictionary comes from 1902, during the well-intentioned Lake Mohonk Conference of Friends of the Indian. There, a white man, Richard Henry Pratt, criticized government policy toward Native Americans. â€œSegregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow,â€ he said. â€œAssociation of races and classes is necessary to destroy racism and classism.â€ Pratt was what we might call â€œprogressiveâ€ for his time; his version of destroying racism involved forcibly assimilating Native Americans into white culture. (As he put it, â€œKill the Indian in him, and save the man.â€) Both of these options â€” segregation by force or assimilation by force â€” had disastrous effects for Native Americans. But for Pratt, racism was a matter of policy, not malice.
Pratt was in the grip of the egalitarian ideal which holds that all people are the same and they only need the right external influences — “magic dirt,” education, “culture,” economic incentives — to be members of society who achieve the same things that those who came before them did. When he wrote honestly about wanting to assimilate Amerinds into the European population, and by doing so destroy their culture and language, Pratt was acting under this benevolent assumption.
A hundred and fourteen years later, Pratt’s illusion remains alive and well, but now our intention is that all groups get assimilated into a uniform grey race. In the simplistic world of human intentions and rationalization, we can then treat people like raw materials run through a factory: breed them, program them with the right education and social opinions, then shovel them into roles that we have documented as process and procedure, regulated with laws and rules, and shaped with what we perceive are incentives. In the illusion of control our minds feel secure, even if the price of this control is the abolishment of ourselves.
As white recognition of self-interest appeared with the introduction of Donald Trump and the alternative Right, the assimilation-oriented view of race has forced to recalculate itself. Its default tactic is to back away from the idea of a mixed population, and instead to demand parallel diversity within the same society, which we might call the Chinatown model: each race has its own neighborhoods but takes a seat on the committee that runs the city. This model of informally segregated diversity has worked well in cities like Houston and San Francisco in the past.
However, this outlook is ultimately a doubling down on diversity. The wishful thinking goes this way, “Our grand plan did not work, but we can make it work by rolling it back to an earlier version of itself.” Chinatowns were common in American cities at the mid-century, but over time, the segregated model gave way to the great Leftist ideal of the mixed-race and therefore cultureless society. Leftists hate anything which competes with egalitarianism for being the cornerstone of the values system of a society, and so they try to remove culture, heritage, religion and family.
The doubling-down on diversity relies on a new meme, inclusion. As spotted by staff writer J.P. Wilkinson, who goes by a slightly different nickname around the compound, the Left is re-grouping around the idea of a nationwide network of Chinatowns vying for political power:
And you think we’ve not seen those scenes because the writers often are white?
DUVERNAY: Yeah, they render it through their lens, so you will see that scene, and it will be with white people. All lives can’t matter to folks who are not us[;] if you don’t know us, if you don’t understand [us]. I don’t make anything as education for anyone; I make it as a love letter to the characters: These are black people; this is a black family. It’s a window into that. The same way when I go see A Separation, an Iranian film about an Iranian family, or when I go to see a Korean film, it is a window into that world, and I see them, and I start to understand and value them. They begin to matter to me.
What is good about this position is that while it is an ill-thought attempt to preserve the diversity status quo, it is also a pivot point from which Nationalism is easily accessible. “All lives can’t matter to folks who are not us” expresses the idea that each racial group acts in self-interest and expects other groups to do the same, which means that the notion of diversity as a melting pot which produces a single culture — “e pluribus unum” or “out of many, one” — has died.
The Left will resurrect the melting pot ideology, as it is one of their favorite mythos, as soon as they have power again, which is why it is suicidal to allow “inclusion” to dominate; what must replace it is “separation,” or reparations and repatriation for all who are not of the Western European group that founded this country. That is and has always been the only solution to the debacle of a mixed-race society, which inevitably produces constant ethnic conflict and resentment. This takes us back to the original idea Pratt expressed, which was to eliminate that conflict — instead of its source, diversity — by assimilating non-majority members and turning them into programmed members of a uniform society.
It is that mentality that makes diversity so useful for tyrants. Having introduced a source of internal division, the tyrant then unifies the people by demanding the political ideology of pluralism (Chinatowns) which then causes problems so he demands the more extreme ideology of universalism through multiple soft genocides (the melting pot). The people, afraid and sheeplike in their tendency to limit their thinking to what people will talk about that actually threatens no one in their particular social group, will demand the latter once the former is instituted.
The only way off this train is to look at the cause of the stress behind diversity, which is the fact that different groups cannot co-exist without competing to see which cultural and values standards will be adopted. Right now, America runs under Western European values, mostly, and inclusionism dictates those rules become relativistic or unequally enforced in the Chinatowns. This however causes stress for non-majority groups, and as a result, introduces constant tension between minority uprisings and majoritarian backlash, the worst of which are the truly angry racial politics groups. And yet, the Black Panthers and White Nationalists agree on one thing: diversity does not work. However, they have not quite figured out how to articulate that yet.
As the melting pot gives way to Chinatown, the illusion of diversity requires another push to collapse into dust. With diversity, no group rules itself and no group can have pride in being the founders of our society. Instead we are all tenants, obeying rules made by a committee of many races, without a national culture or standard of behavior to guide us. Under this system, no one can win, and this is why inclusionism must be abolished along with the melting pot.