While many believe that prejudice has diminished over time, it’s not really true. Prejudice is much like the wind: Its direction changes, and the sheltered and well-situated may not sense it, but it’s always blowing on some people somewhere. Put literally, every age has its fashionable biases – and unfashionable people.
This was obvious during the
presidential inauguration benediction,
given by the Reverend Joseph Lowery. While
making a supplication to the Lord, he made the following anachronistic plea:
“. . . help us work for that day when black
will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be
mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right [emphasis mine].”
Well, I wonder if the reverend
has ever asked the Lord why He scourged the world with white people in the
first place.
It isn’t surprising that caucaphobia
is in fashion. You can demonize any
person, group or place; all you need do is focus on the object’s failings to
the exclusion of its/his accomplishments.
It isn’t even hard to do. To
bastardize one of Abraham Lincoln’s lines, if you look for the worst in a
group, you’re sure to find it. It’s just
as with a person. If I repeatedly
disseminated your sins and mistakes among the town folk while downplaying your
good points, how long would it be before they were chasing you with
pitchforks?
So it has been with whites for
a long time now. It is not correct to
say that history textbooks, documentaries and entertainment inundate us with
stories about slavery and civil rights abuses; no, they inundate us with
stories about whites’ practice of
slavery and abuse of civil rights. There
are movies such as “Roots” and “Mississippi Burning” but none of note about the
Aztecs’ or Shaka Zulu’s domination of neighboring peoples, or the current
African slave trade or Zimbabwean “president” Robert Mugabe’s persecution of whites and political
opponents. Then, relating the American
history guidelines of a prominent textbook publisher, the author of The Language Police, Diane Ravitch, writes:
“European Americans, the
guidelines suggest, were uniquely responsible for bigotry and exploitation in
all human history.”
This philosophy imbues school
textbooks. While featured prominently
are the sins of whites, others’ sins are whitewashed. For instance, due to special-interest-group
pressure – such as that applied by Moslem activists – examples
of slavery perpetrated by non-whites are in short supply or are sanitized. This, despite the fact that Moslem North
Africans did at one time capture young boys of both the white and black races,
castrate them and sell them into slavery.
And this bias is a continuation of decades of anti-white propaganda of
the kind embodied in Susan Sontag’s famous 1967 line, “The white race is the
cancer of human history.” It’s an idea
that has taken hold.
Thus must I mount a defense of
the white race. But I want to preface it
with a few remarks. First, don’t ask why
I undertake such an endeavor. When the
president has a preacher talking about the black, brown, yellow, red and white,
it’s silly to ask why I speak of race.
I’m not initiating such a discussion, I’m responding. I’m not throwing punches, I’m blocking.
Second, because of this – since
I’m refuting those who assign blame by highlighting the sins of whites – it’s
necessary that I trumpet whites’ accomplishments. Unlike those I’m refuting, however – who
often ascribe the evils they feature to something inherent in whites – I don’t
claim there is an innate quality in the race that should be credited with all these
triumphs. On the contrary, I believe the
force primarily responsible for Western civilization’s glories is Christianity,
but that is grist for a different day.
It’s not hard to figure out
where a defense of whites must start: Slavery.
It’s the most odd of issues, in that we all thoroughly agree on the
wrongness of it yet it is thoroughly divisive.
It is the defining grievance
of black America, something that imbues millions of black psyches. As an example, I attended a gathering a few
years ago at which there was a certain guest, a rather emotive and outgoing
black fellow who was very good at relating every topic of discussion, from the
meaningful to the mundane, to America’s slavery. It was as if he could channel Kunta Kinte in
every conversation.
Yet the reality of slavery is
that, along with prostitution, it is one of the world’s oldest
institutions. It is mentioned in the
Bible and Koran, and, to the best of my knowledge, every major civilization has
practiced it. And, if we’re to believe history
and Afrocentrists (and I suppose you cannot believe both), the ancient
Egyptians were black and enslaved Jews.
Moreover, the Islamic slave
trade took at least as many Africans into bondage as did the European variety,
and African tribes themselves had slaves and sold them to both civilizations. Additionally, while the word “slave” conjures
up the image of a black person in the typical American mind, the term itself is
derived from the word “Slav.” This is
because great numbers of Slavs were once sold into slavery by conquering
peoples. In other words, no group ever cornered
the market on slavery – it touched ever corner of the Earth.
Yet, in the history of involuntary
servitude, something else should be noted.
It is a startling fact:
While whites weren’t the first
ones to practice slavery, they were the first ones to abolish it.
Let’s be clear about this. Slavery was accepted. It was the status quo. It was an institution whose origin was
shrouded in the mists of time. It was
unquestioned.
That is, until Europeans said
“No more.”
It was not Asians who effected
this bold and unprecedented social change.
It was not South Americans. It
was not Africans. It was not American
Indians. It was not Aborigines. It was Europeans, that cancer of human
history, and they were just as white then as they are today. They gave the world change you can really
believe in.
People will try to explain away
this historical fact, saying that this striking example of man’s humanity to
man has nothing to do with race. I will
simply reiterate that the why of the matter is a discussion for a different
day. For now, I’m content to say that if
whites can be demonized without explanation for being one of many groups to enslave
Africans, they can be credited without explanation for being the first group to
outlaw the enslavement of anyone.
One of the reasons we fixate on
slavery that ended more than 150 years ago concerns the effects many believe it
has today. This is called the “legacy of
slavery,” which, actually, seems not nearly as big a problem as the legacy of
obsessing on legacies. Be that as it
may, what is the real legacy of slavery?
Well, let’s think about it:
Many lament blacks’ economic state in America, claiming it’s part of slavery’s
legacy. But where would blacks be were
it not for slavery? The answer is Africa,
where people’s economic state is far, far worse than that of American blacks.
In other words, there is no
reason to agonize over an event – even an evil one – responsible for your
presence in a country that has offered its citizens unprecedented rights and
standard of living. (Of course, to be
precise, most blacks currently in the U.S. would not actually have been worse
off absent slavery. This is because they
wouldn’t have “been” at all, as ancestors whose procreation led to their
existence would never even have met. The
big picture is a funny thing, isn’t it?)
The point is that most people who arrived on
American shores were driven here by some kind of persecution. Whatever the reason, however, thank God we’re
in the land of opportunity and not languishing in a slum in Asia, South
America, Africa or Eastern Europe. So,
it’s ironic, but that some blacks were brought here in chains yesterday ensured
that their descendants wouldn’t have to wear chains today.
Now we come to prejudice,
another supposedly characteristic white fault. Yet the truth is quite the opposite. In reality, racial prejudice is probably
found least among whites, due to political correctness.
Most white children are raised
today with the idea that it’s profoundly immoral to be prejudiced (I discussed
this here). This isn’t to say there aren’t some Archie
Bunker types extant, but they certainly aren’t in fashion. Remember, it was mainly white people who
originated, promoted and funded sensitivity-training classes, tolerance
programs and multiculturalism (come to think of it, I may start hating white
people myself). Now, while I consider
these abominations to be worse than what they ostensibly remedy, this brings us
to a relevant question: Can you think of another group that has gone to the
point of self-flagellation to purge prejudice from its ranks? Heck, with how we beat each other up over
this, no one really has to worry at all about whites. We’re all black and blue.
Then we have the matter of
white achievement. The vast majority of what
makes the lives of all races better today – modern science and medicine; our
luxuries; Western art, literature, legal institutions; etc. – is the handiwork
of whites. Oh, this is simply a matter
of circumstance, of opportunity, of a twist of fate, you say? Perhaps.
Again, this is not the time to discuss the ways and whys. Suffice it to say for now that if President Obama
(PBUH) can frame matters in terms of race at his inauguration (and in his books
and everywhere else, it seems), I can in an article. And if whites can be ridiculed for their
transgressions, they can be recognized for their triumphs.
Yet, despite all this and more,
caucaphobia is still not only accepted but often encouraged. And the hypocrisy is stark. The left admonishes against making even valid
generalizations or entertaining intellectual discussions about group differences.
And indulging stereotyping – that
specter of egalitarian nightmares – can fast earn one pariah status in addition
to a place on the unemployment line. Why, even the positive variety is off
limits. We cannot say blacks are better
athletes, even though the sports arena may bear witness to this; we cannot say
Asians are more intelligent, even though they have the highest average I.Q. of
any major racial group; we cannot say Latinos are good dancers (not sure about
that one). The idea is that such beliefs
can lead to stigmatization or resentment or, or . . . whatever the theory du
jour may be.
But when the matter is whites,
even baseless negative stereotypes aren’t thought cause for alarm. A Reverend Lowery can imply that whites are
uniquely flawed and immoral, they can be portrayed as the bane of man, as “the
cancer of human history,” and it’s ho-hum.
Yet, are we to believe that
such demonization magically becomes harmless when whites are the targets? What does history teach about the plight of consistently
scapegoated and dehumanized groups? It’s
that they almost invariably end up suffering persecution. And given that current demographic trends
indicate whites will becomes a minority in America during the lifetimes of many
reading this, and given that even majorities sometimes are tyrannized – as
Sunnis’ domination of Shiites under Saddam Hussein and the Spartans’
enslavement of the Helots proved – it’s foolish to dismiss the peril posed by
mainstreaming caucaphobia. (In fact,
whites already suffer the sting of persecution; I documented some cases here
and here).
Yet, that increasingly-maligned
dead white male Ben Franklin knew whereof he spoke when he said, “You cannot
reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.” Prejudice is a function of emotion, not
logic, and emotion is like darkness, in that it can be blinding. A person who sees only color – and through
colored glasses – will have a powerful immunity to facts. Thus, I only expect caucaphobia to intensify.
So what can we do? Well, prayer is always good, so I’ll conclude with one of my own right now. Lord, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will cease the attack, brown will no longer frown, white will be all right – and rhymes will fit the times.
© 2008 Selwyn Duke -- All Rights Reserved
Good article.
Us Europeans did stop slavery.
We are also well on the way to stopping the death penalty.
Posted by: J. UK | February 25, 2009 at 12:04 PM
There is no death penalty in Mexico already. It is truly the land of peace love and harmony. A utopia really.
Posted by: Walt | February 25, 2009 at 05:16 PM
As long as their is sin in this world there will always be a death penalty.
Posted by: Criscraft | February 25, 2009 at 05:54 PM
Great, great article. This article should be on page one of every newspaper in the country.
Posted by: John | February 26, 2009 at 02:34 AM
I can be sympathetic to many of your arguments, but you lose me here:
"But where would blacks be were it not for slavery? The answer is Africa, where people’s economic state is far, far worse than that of American blacks."
You fail to address the reason why the economic state of Africa is far far worse than that of American blacks. The root of the problems on the African continent lie hundreds of years ago with European colonization, the slave trade ripping up and pitting tribes against each other, and imperialism. With very few notable exceptions, sub-Saharan Africa was either ruled by whites, or, when the Europeans slowly trickled out and returned African countries to African rule, left virtually stranded with no real basis for forming non-violent societies.
Sorry. We may never know what would have happened on the African continent if not for slavery. Slavery did not just affect the Americas.
Posted by: Sam | February 26, 2009 at 05:02 PM
In summary: It is an invalid argument to say that American blacks should be "grateful" for slavery removing their ancestors from the "hell" that is modern-day Africa.
Posted by: Sam | February 26, 2009 at 05:03 PM
Bravo to Selwyn Duke for another indisputably articulate and logical presentation. I have so many supportive points to make that I would like to scream, but I will narrow them down.
When do whites get to make claims for reparations to their denial of opportunities resulting from the institutionalized racism known as Affirmative Action?
I further the point of Selwyn's that it was white Christians who brought us out of the dark ages and into the advanced culture that we now enjoy the benefits of. Simply follow the arc of history and, unless you are an utterly deluded fool, you will plainly see that cultural and technological advancement is commensurate to the arc of the spread of Christianity.
Lastly, in the U.S. it was evangelical Christians who championed civil rights. The Democrats and liberals hijacked this cause after the heavy lifting was done. The evidence of the Left's embrace of civil rights has resulted in the victimization of blacks as a political tool that far too many have swallowed hook, line and sinker. Evidence abounds that the number one factor in the economic disparity between blacks and other assimilated races and cultures is single motherhood. Liberals/Leftists are alone in the blame for this travesty. I further this point by correctly pointing out the media and cultural elitist demonization of successful Afro-Americans such as Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Michelle Malkin and Bill Cosby. Add to this the eradication of discussion about historical black innovators such as George Washington Carver.
Racial bigotry is a tool employed by the political Left to sow discord into an otherwise harmonious society. The evidence is abundant that what racial bigotry exists in America today exists because of white liberals and black militants.
Posted by: Philip France | February 26, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Ive heard this argument many times before and some truth lies here no doubt. However, Ive often wondered why the Africans allowed themselves to be taken over by a vastly inferior numerical force? Why did these "great civilizations" as afrocentrists put, be succumbed by European politics? Better yet, why didn't Africans sail across the mediterranean and enslave Europe. It is true that European colonization had many positive and negative effects on the socio-economic picture of Africa but at some point you just have to realize the African people are to blame. When you consider the colossal failure of nearly all of sub-saharan Africa versus other former colonies and maltreated peoples' you realize that something is surely different there. Maybe in a another 50 years and several trillion in IMF extorted funds wasted well come around to accepting this picture. Maybe
Shaun
UCA
Posted by: Shaun | February 27, 2009 at 01:38 PM
You are mistaking my argument for a different one. I do not think that the civilizations of sub-Saharan cultures were more advanced than or superior to those of the European civilizations. (And now, quite frankly, we'll never know what could have become of the continent, but what's past is past, and that's all water under the bridge.) Does that mean, however, that the European civilizations had a right to enslave and subjugate the peoples of the Africa continent? Absolutely not. Were the peoples of Germany somehow deserving of having their land taken from them and their customs and religion quashed out by the Romans in antique times, just because they didn't bow to Zeus and didn't have the technological and strategic advantage of legions and cavalry? No. Also, your argument forgets that Africa was still divided into several splintered tribes at the time of European colonization, whereas Europe had the might of united nations behind it. A side note, but one worth pointing out.
And if the Africans had been more technologically advanced, you suggest that they should have sailed up and enslaved Europe. Why on earth would that have been better? Your reasoning implies that, well, someone would have had to enslave SOMEONE (forgive my use of capslock, I don't think this supports HTML coding for italics and the like), so it might as well have been the African continent (and southeast Asia) that got it, right? Sorry if I don't subscribe to this particular worldview.
Posted by: Sam | February 28, 2009 at 09:16 AM
Sam,
"You fail to address the reason why the economic state of Africa is far far worse than that of American blacks"
That was what I repsonded to. Slavery and colonization are detestable to me. Stains on the history of Europe. Your replies, according to me, are attempting to excuse african failure on whites. My examples show a clear lack of capability in African societies that would have existed regradless of European intervention. That was my point!
Shaun
Posted by: Shaun | February 28, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Your comment affirms that an occasional use of Sarcasm has its place. We are reaping the benefits of the influx of the Mexican Utopia into our own country. Isn't that special?
Posted by: T. Bruce | March 03, 2009 at 08:10 AM