Views: 28213|Replies: 380

What is Racism?   [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 2

Post time 2014-5-25 15:56:28 |Display all floors
This post was edited by Coulomb at 2014-5-25 16:14

What Is Racism?

by Thomas Jackson

There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off. For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism.
   
Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what *is* racism?
   
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans *do* mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.
   
The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.
   
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them UNconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then *institutions* must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of white people.
   
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-white failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only white people *can* be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that *all* whites are racist and that *only* whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
   
Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of white oppression. What appears to be non-white racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.
   
Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a white man kills a black man and uses the word "ni*ger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks on whites.
   
At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote for a white candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is white who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically white colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing. To resist would be racist.
   
"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.
   
Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism.
   
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for whites is by definition racist. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist.
   
At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the white students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non- whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a white enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is branded as racist.
   

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 2

Post time 2014-5-25 16:01:30 |Display all floors
This post was edited by Coulomb at 2014-5-25 16:05

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 Educational 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 criminal 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" another 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 subject 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 their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish 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 people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.

What Is Racism? by Thomas Jackson originally appeared in American Renaissance, Vol. 2, No. 8.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 2

Post time 2014-5-25 16:08:27 |Display all floors
Simply change the word "Whites" into "Chinese" throughout the article, and then you can see that China and Chinese people should never be accused of "racism."

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2014-5-25 16:54:17 |Display all floors
Well, after some time, we will all be shades of some other colour, there will be no need to worry about whites.
I'm a little bit wrong and your a little bit right.
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 2

Post time 2014-5-25 17:00:20 |Display all floors
Ronny Post time: 2014-5-25 16:54
Well, after some time, we will all be shades of some other colour, there will be no need to worry ab ...

This article is for China, not Whites.  

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 5Rank: 5

Post time 2014-5-25 17:01:50 |Display all floors
"For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism."

ok, thats not necessarily meaning the boy was being called racist but could be showing how society gives more educational opportunities in life to white children. (If you look at the spread of money in America with the majority being in white hands, such advantages help keep it in white hands)

"They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race"

Well that's abusing the dictionary and omitting what they want...did they conveniently leave out the discrimination part? Lets go see what oxford dictionary has to say about it?

"Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:" this is not quite the same as what this article has written. They are omitting words from the definition to strengthen their argument which is bad practice.

"If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then *institutions* must be racist"

due to their foundations being built on racism (so for example, previously all the money in america was held by white people as the black people were slaves at that time therefore when slavery was abolished the whites still had an educational advantage due to having more money and more opportunities. This still entrenches whites as the dominant society due to our past. the only way to level the playing field would be to spread all the money out equally, give everyone equal opportunities and start again and I bet you would see different results. Such an argument does not prove the authors point.

"when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991"
the articles used are dated to over 20 years ago, society has changed somewhat. White racism is documented more: see below on cnn.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/21/white.persecution/index.html

"What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico?"
"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"
just remember, America is a country of immigrants...Britain already did this to the native Americans.

this article is utter garbage, there are a few good points I will currently go over but it's utter garbage and has so many flaws in the argument that it's barely worth the paper it's written on. The only part I think interesting is the inability to create white power institutions but I will come back to that.

Anyway Chinese people, and anyone else who is prejudiced against another race, can be accused of racism. This article talks mainly about prejudices in terms of institutional prejudice's. However, stating that you hate ALL Japanese is simply racist, no if or buts about it. They are not all ain agreement with their government, you cannot simply assume you hate all of them without PRE JUDGING THEM pre judge....prejudice. you see where the word comes from.

Don't try justifying your racism, just cause some moron wrote what initially seems like an intelligent article doesn't mean he actually has any clue what he is talking about.
You know that every time I try to go
Where I really want to be
It's already where I am
'Cause I'm already there

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 5Rank: 5

Post time 2014-5-25 17:06:04 |Display all floors
As for there being black institutions and not white ones. Like I said, in the other comment I posted, they have less opportunities in life due to the power mainly being in white hands. They make such groups to try to strengthen their own power base, to give themselves more opportunities. It's not like a "we hate white people group" whereas white people have a bad history of creating "we hate(insert colour)" groups. It's the stigma that goes with white groups and technically speaking is our own fault.

However, whenever you feel yourself superior to another human being based on race alone, whenever you discriminate against someone based on an stereotypical judgement or random guess work you are being racist. When you hate someone for being from whatever country you are being racist. We can call anyone who falls under such criteria racist as that's what they are. So stop trying to make yourself seem like a non racist for hating others.
You know that every time I try to go
Where I really want to be
It's already where I am
'Cause I'm already there

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.