How a knuckle-dragging conservative found out one day he was really a Marxist.
I was somewhat taken aback to learn from the comments to my recent essay "Off to the Races: The Perplexing Politics of Political Correctness," that I am not a “real conservative,” but rather a utopian Marxist.
The main reason for having my political beliefs reclassified, I was told, is that a real conservative believes in kith and kin and blood and soil, which means that “race matters,” which means that the amount of melanin in a person’s skin is a factor that must be taken into consideration by any True Believer on the Right (TBR) when assessing the worth of another human being. (I’m not making any of this up. For those of you who think I’m misrepresenting these views, I refer you to the comment section of that post.)
Since I’ve always been considered a knuckle-dragging neocon by my friends and family, you can understand my natural confusion at suddenly finding myself placed in the Commie-lib camp. Now as someone who actually knows people who are real Communists — not the name-calling kind, but people who are card-carrying members and proud of it — I can tell you that I’d last about 10 seconds in one of their little get-togethers before I’d find my formerly-neocon butt purged from the group by unanimous consent. But I do believe that the fundamental way to look at the world is not through the prism of race, age, sex or religion, and I guess that’s all any TBR needs to know to divide up the universe properly.
So here I stand (or actually, sit while I’m typing), stripped of my conservatism by the TBR Defenders of the Faith, compelled now to learn the words to the Internationale so I can find a new home among other kindred spirits. But before I don my Che Guevara beret with the little red star and start quoting from Chairman Mao instead of from Chairman Reagan, I thought perhaps we all might step back for a moment and see how many other poor deluded souls there are out there. I mean, if I’ve got to leave the conservative movement because of the strange things I believe, I’d like to see if there are some other equally deluded people out there who might keep me company.
So, to help all of you assess your political identity, I offer the following Racial Purity Quiz to help you decide if you, too, are a True Believer on the Right, or instead a misguided fool like myself who thinks that we shouldn’t judge a person by the color of their skin, but instead look beyond that when making our assessment of an individual’s intrinsic worth.
Question #1: When you think about a person in a uniform standing with their hand extended palm outward, do you get the mental image of:
A. A man in blue directing traffic, or
B. A man in brown creating havoc.
Question #2: When you think about the values embodied by “Rockwell’s work,” are you referring to:
A. Norman Rockwell, the artist who designed over 300 covers for the Saturday Evening Post celebrating the values and traditions of average Americans, or
B. George Lincoln Rockwell, the father of the white supremacist movement in the United States.
Question #3: When you say you are an admirer of Cato, do you think about
A. The philosophy of John Locke, whose notion of natural rights and the social contract helped form the underpinnings to the Declaration of Independence, in which all men are said to be created equal, or
B. That guy John Locke too, but only if the person is the right color to begin with.
Question #4: When you toss around words like “Marxist” to describe the philosophy of people who aren’t ardent segregationists, is your understanding of Marxism based on the concept of “alienation,” which you understand as
A. The relationship of an individual to the ownership and control of the means of production, or
B. A great movie staring James Caan a few years ago.
And finally, Question #5: When you find it necessary to use the word “kith and kin” to explain your philosophy, do people
A. Automatically assume you are speaking with a lisp, because no one uses archaic words like these anymore unless they’re trying to sound more educated and erudite than they really are, or
B. Nod their heads knowingly, because it’s the exact way they routinely say “friends and family” too.
If you answered “A” to each of the above questions, I’m afraid you are a Marxist fellow traveler too. The bus leaves at one o’clock sharp for the indoctrination and re-education camp. Don’t be late; I’ll try to save you a seat.
Or maybe, and this is just a wild thought that suddenly popped into my head, maybe it’s the True Believers on the Right who are the guys who haven’t quite gotten it right.
Believing that we should work toward a genuine color-blind society doesn’t make me — or anyone else who thinks this way — anti-Conservative because some Leftist moron polemicist a few years back tried to use the race card as a wedge-issue to weaken American society. There are lots of idiots in this world who hijack words and turn them around to mean something entirely different than they were intended. One only has to think about a “People’s Democratic Republic” to appreciate that such governments are rarely “democratic,” and never designed to benefit “the people.”
So why should I have to abandon my philosophy of looking beyond the color of a man’s skin just because some Frankenstein conspiracy got together with the Protocols of Zion to mess with the English language and use race as a weapon? As adults with even a community college education, we ought to be sophisticated enough to see past the mendacity of this blatant exercise in propaganda and not throw out the proverbial baby with the proverbial bathwater.
That is, unless the doors to the compound are so tightly shut, if you catch my drift, that a self-proclaimed TBR is just looking for an excuse to advocate racial segregation under the guise of a higher political principle. This says absolutely nothing about what constitutes “real conservatism,” but speaks volumes about the real character of the individuals holding this kind of position.
I’ve always believed that what separates “us” from the True Believers on the Left is our willingness to use our minds to think independently and arrive at positions which are best for the nation, not just one segment’s narrow vested interests. It’s why I can support a war on Islamo-fascism that is prosecuted by the same president whose policies on immigration I vehemently oppose. Contrast this with the Clinton kool-aid drinkers who wouldn’t concede any issues during his presidency for fear of giving the “evil Republicans” a tactical political advantage.
Since the conservatism I embrace is built on a value system that seeks real truth and real justice, in which the only genuine differences that exist among people are those they create for themselves, it doesn’t matter to me whether the author of a really bad idea calls himself a Democrat or Republican, a Liberal or a Conservative. I’m just as happy making fun of the foolishness and duplicity on the Right as I am the foolishness and duplicity on the Left. I can do this, as I explained in my previous essay, because assessing the fundamental value of another person (or their ideas) is based on only one factor, which the editors of this website have translated as “jerk” instead of the original word I used to make this point.
Nevertheless, whether the classification system employs the term “jerk,” or the exit point to a human being’s alimentary canal, the sentiment is still the same. The results I get from this simple exercise in judgment have proven time and time again to be the best predictor of future events. And this time is no exception.
Elizabeth,
What is wrong with supporting segregation? All the original conservatives did.
Here are what some great conservative minds have to say:
One of Russell Kirk’s many beautiful defenses of segregation: “The South…the Permanence of America: the defender — sometimes consciously, sometimes blindly — of principles immensely ancient, of conventions that yet have meaning . . . Without the South to act as its Permanence, the American Republic would be perilously out of joint. And the South need feel not shame for its defense of beliefs that were not concocted yesterday.” — Russell Kirk, defense of segregation, Modern Age
“It would be reckless indeed to tamper with an institution as ancient as segregation.” – Letter, Kirk
Kirk on miscegenation: “We have no right,” says Kirk, “to tamper recklessly with human nature or with the delicate fabric of our civil social order.”
“The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.” – National Review, 1957
Richard M. Weaver: “some of the means, for example the Ku Klux Klan, were irregular, but essentially it was the political genius of Jefferson, of Washington, of Madison, and of Pinckney expressing itself in times of trouble and oppression.”
David Williams
davidpwilliams1975@yahoo.com
Oh yea, Phillip, have you read Aristotle? Book I of this Politics is a complete justification for slavery. Well, you better avoid it. It probably will offend your PC sensibilities.
My comment was riddle with sarcasm as to the distance some will go to completely confuse and mislead everyone involved.
I get it believe me I do and I find it amusing.
Someone brought up Jesse Jackson as if that brought any legitimacy to the forum.
Inherent in all of us is some sort of separation from other races. I find certain women very beautiful and others do absolutely nothing for me; am I racist for not ignoring my desires or am I racists because someone thinks I should look at everyone equally?
In most cases it is a win-win situation when you bring up the subject of race.
I hunt, my wife hunts, I have one black friend who doesn’t hunt and I enjoy his company. He isn’t interested in hunting so should I quit hunting and socialize with him instead or continue hunting and be called a racist for not dividing my time up equally between my enjoyments?
I’m not a racist because I don’t eat at Churches Chicken, I’m a racist because someone else thinks because I don’t eat at Churches I’m a racist. I don’t like the food at Churches but I’ll eat KFC or Popeyes and two out of three aren’t bad.
I socialize with whom I want to based off the mutual interests not on social standings and if it happens to be a majority of white males who enjoy to hunt, well it’s because none of the black people I know hunt.
These questions aren’t aimed at you they are general questions and questions that don’t need answering just food for thought.
I’m sure my examples will be taken out of context and so be it I really could give two craps less. That’s a great part of being an American, I can say what I want and so can you and we are all allowed to think how we think we should.
Dave
DAVID: thanks for all the quotes. I’m adding them to my blog and I just emailed them to everyone on my lists. PEOPLE: You need to see these:
One of Russell Kirk’s many beautiful defenses of segregation: “The South…the Permanence of America: the defender — sometimes consciously, sometimes blindly — of principles immensely ancient, of conventions that yet have meaning . . . Without the South to act as its Permanence, the American Republic would be perilously out of joint. And the South need feel not shame for its defense of beliefs that were not concocted yesterday.” — Russell Kirk, defense of segregation, Modern Age
“It would be reckless indeed to tamper with an institution as ancient as segregation.” – Letter, Kirk
Kirk on miscegenation: “We have no right,” says Kirk, “to tamper recklessly with human nature or with the delicate fabric of our civil social order.”
“The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.” – National Review, 1957
Richard M. Weaver: “some of the means, for example the Ku Klux Klan, were irregular, but essentially it was the political genius of Jefferson, of Washington, of Madison, and of Pinckney expressing itself in times of trouble and oppression.”
Please, let’s keep this debate civil. There are some interesting scholarly disputes here. We can all agree to disagree. There is no reason for name calling.
Below is a great discussion of the Greek and Roman roots of “racism.” Most think today that the Greeks and Romans invented the concept of ‘race’. Previously, scholars thought they invented ethnic hatred, xenophobia, and ethnic cleansing, but now many believe this was the proto-racism for modern day race categories.
I would kindly disagree with Phil. I think that Aristotle in particular is a major foundation for modern day racism.
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i7737.html
I had an experience at work that to me demonstrated the cultural divide between liberals and conservatives on the issue of race.
I teach parenting and worked with a single black mother. One of the children asked a social worker who interviewed her if it was true that all white men are bad as his mother had taught him. As you can assume, as a white male worker, I had an uphill battle.
I shared the racist sentiments expressed by the mother to my supervisor and how the mother initially wouldn’t even look my way during our appointments. Her response was to suggest that I tell the mother that I understood she has been oppressed and I as a white male could not understand her situation. I heartily disagreed and stated I was there to assist with parenting which was not a racial issue. Besides, I knew nothing of her “oppression,” but recognised the problem had nothing to do with racial insensitivity or lack of insight on my part, but racist attitudes and poor parenting (including passing on her racist views to her children).
The liberal approach is to make it all about race and not about character and behaviour. Blacks are allowed to be racist because of past oppression, and white male Christian conservatives are all racist well, because they are white male Christian conservatives. Incidentally, not only did I have success at connecting with the client my way (by focusing her on her children’s needs), but the child who asked that question about white men would always come and chat with me and gave me hugs when I would leave.
My conservative sources are not Kirk and Weaver, but Christ and the Apostles. Remember Christ? He taught about the good Samaritan and was the greatest person to unite disparate communities behind a common cause and challenged elitist views. The apostles followed His example. The uniting standards were love, mutual responsibility, character, and self sacrifice.
Yes, I agree. Let’s keep this debate civil.
The idea of using DNA to determine one’s race is very popular now. There are many companies that do it (DNA Tribes, DNA Ancestry Project, Trace Genetics, and dozens of others). NPR just had a show on it the other day.
I know a girl who is from an old East-Coast family and she wanted her husband-to-be to take a DNA ancestry test to make certain he was of pure European blood. She is not racist at all. She just wanted to keep their family line intact.
Many Mexicans now – who can afford it – are also doing this to get more in contact with their Asiatic origins. They have been able to locate ancestor DNA pools in China and as far as India. (The NPR show was talking about this.)
The cost of these DNA tests is only about $150. You swab your mouth and send in the sample.
Ancestry DNA testing has exposed many myths of American History. For example, probably only about 4% of white Americans have any African or Native American blood in them at all, and if they do it is like one ancestor out of hundreds.
Dan
rightwingdude2006@Yahoo.com
What I’m not seeing at all here is consideration of the fact that the idea of different “races” is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific concept, essentially a political construct. I personally don’t see any value in basing my judgments or decisions on baseless mist. Reality (such as the real actions of an individual) is usually more reliable than fantasy (such as ideas of “race”).
This charge of inferiority is an old dodge. It has been made available for oppression on many occasions. It is only about six centuries since the blue-eyed and fair-haired Anglo-Saxons were considered inferior by the haughty Normans, who once trampled upon them. If you read the history of the Norman Conquest, you will find that this proud Anglo-Saxon was once looked upon as of coarser clay than his Norman master, and might be found in the highways and byways of Old England laboring with a brass collar on his neck, and the name of his master marked upon it. You were down then! You are up now. I am glad you are up, and I want you to be glad to help us up also.
-Frederick Douglass, excerpt from “What A Black man Wants” speech
I also think that there has been a false dichotomy put forth as well, in that either you’re a segregationist or an integrationist. How about a “do-whichever-you-wantist?” If you want to avoid association with somebody, go ahead. If you want to associate with somebody, go ahead. How about the wacky idea of not trying to force either on people?
Also, there has been some confusing of the words “race” and “ethnicity.” It would improve clarity to remember that “race” (though, again, it is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific concept) refers to biological elements a person is born with, while “ethnicity” refers to cultural (learned, extra-genetic elements).
“the fact that the idea of different “races” is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific concept, “
Wow, you hear people believe this, but it’s so weird to actually read someone express the concept.
Do you not believe your own eyes? This is treating science like magic. You’re basically saying something mystical is going on beyond the observable surface to negate an obvious viewable reality. This is a similar thought pattern to those who are deluded into believing in an invisible spiritual world that prosecutes them for breaking a mirror, walking under a ladder, or stepping on a crack.
I read to one of my buddies (he’s not white) the line you wrote. He said, “Only a white person could believe something like that.”
I read what I just typed, and though it’s what I want to say, it comes across as a bit snarky. I don’t mean to insult you, I just find what you’re saying really out there. Can you give a little more info on why you believe that black people aren’t black, white people aren’t white, etc. and that the only differences are in our head. ‘Cause, brother, you’ve got to back something like that up.
“How about a “do-whichever-you-wantist?” If you want to avoid association with somebody, go ahead. If you want to associate with somebody, go ahead.”
Freedom of Association is a basic human right. It’s wonderful to read somebody actually point it out.
Sorry. The above should be addressed to Dr. Jackson, not Johnson.
I am posting this separately because it is a distinct point from the one I made above.
Dr. Jackson, I am afraid you either just don’t get it or you are intentionally not getting it. I suspect the latter because I am sure they don’t give PhDs to dummies at the University of Chicago.
You mentioned something about the legacy of Locke, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Reagan. Well I suspect you know that paleos don’t claim them as their intellectual forebears. In fact, the primary grudge of the paleos might well be that they reject Locke and his silly fantasy of contract theory and tabula rasa. Societies and hence governments do not arise when an abstract group of individuals come together and agree on some contract. Societies are organic outgrowths of the land, culture, religion, ethnicity, history, etc. of a people and can not be separated from them. Paleos would claim Filmer, Hume, Althusius, Lord Acton, Calhoun, etc. as the contra-Locke political theorist that they prefer.
There is probably a mixed opinion among paleos about Jefferson. He was certainly not orthodox in his religious views and that is a strike against him. And his rhetoric contained a lot of Lockean idiom. Another strike. But he was essentially a Southern Agrarian and was against centralization. This is a big endorsement in his favor. Confederates tend to be more sympathetic to him than others. I believe some paleos consider him a hopeless radical (liberal).
Of course, even the marginally informed know that paleos do not like Lincoln who ushered in America’s French Revolution. To bring him up is just argumentative.
I’m sure many paleos regard Reagan as an amiable figure and an able politician, but they realize he was clearly leagues to the left of the Founders. In fact, one of the problems with the modern “conservative” movement is that it seems unable to look past the 80s for its conservative bearings.
It is important to note that paleos differ significantly in their political vision from most racially conscious or “white nationalists.” I am not sure who above is arguing from a paleo vs. white nationalist standpoint. We share a common enemy in the politically correct “mainstream” right, but the endpoints we seek are different.
In fact, white nationalist have been critical of paleos for not being conscious enough of race or for not speaking out more. Paleos do not deny that race exist or is important. In fact, their contra-Locke theory presupposes a common ethnicity in the development of natural organic communities. (What follows is my interpretation. I do not want to put words in all paleos mouths, but I do not think I am too off base.) They believe race is not historically the major factor. Race is really a supra-category. White English and Celts and French and Germans were fighting each other long before most had ever even seen someone of another race. The Japanese hated the Chinese and viewed them as inferior long before any of them had seen a White man. Black African tribes were looting, killing, and enslaving each other long before the White man arrived on their shores.
The races theoretically arose because they were separated from each other by large and relatively impenetrable land barriers, the Sahara Desert and the Himalayas. It is historically a rather recent phenomenon that the races have had much contact.
While conservatives should reject proposition nation and nation of immigrants nonsense, it is true that the united States are an English colonial nation and are therefore somewhat different than the more spontaneously occurring and “natural” countries of Europe. In this way we are more similar to Canada, Australia or New Zealand than we are to say Italy or Germany. It is the unique history of America that has made the supra-category of race an issue. The races, as I said, generally didn’t naturally interact. They interact here because we artificially imported large numbers of Blacks. But the various white ethnicities had been fighting in America like they do in Europe long before the slaves were freed and well after. The relative “melting pot” nature of America brought many white ethnicities into contact with each other in a way they generally would not have been. The WASPs didn’t like the Irish or the Italians. The Italians and Irish didn’t like each other. And no one liked the Polish. (A la Gangs of New York.) Etc. I could go on.
So today, the white nationalist would have the WASPs, the Italians, the Irish, and the Poles all join together in support of some generic White interest against Blacks and Mexicans. But can you see how paleos would view this as a somewhat artificial scenario and the result of the unique history of the united States.
The paleo would not focus on White interest vs. Black interest as much as they would on decentralization and forming small organic communities. The white nationalists do not necessarily have anything against centralization. In fact, many admire Lincoln. So the paleo would argue that the white nationalists (not all) focus on a sort of unnatural “ideology” of race and hence in some ways are of the left. Paleos recognize the existence of biologic race, and may well concede a greater “obligation” to ones own race. They certainly understand the ethno-cultural aspects of the immigration debate. But would again see an over emphasis on the supra-category of race as a result of the historically anomalous character of this country.
Of course, it could be argued that a wise policy would take into account the unique character of America and to some extent I’m sure many paleos would agree. But some white nationalist seem intent to obliterate the historical ethnic distinctions in the name of a more general white consciousness which has the effect of homogenizing. Most paleos would seek to do the opposite. To reawaken historic ethnic consciousness in an attempt to foster heterogeneity.
Jerrett:
Well, son, as any anthropologist or social scientist who didn't get a mail-order degree knows, there's nothing "scientific" to back up the interesting notion of different races in any meaningful biological sense. Obviously there are differences in appearance between people, (even among a population of white people, or black people, or what have you) as well as certain commonalities in certain populations, but there is nothing in any of that to support the politically (or more often, emotionally) motivated action of manufacturing so-called "racial" distinctions and asserting that they mean anything significant.
Now, if you are going to expand the term "race" out to include things such on the same level as the observable differences between, for example, people who are referred to as "white" and people who are referred to as "black," the term "race" loses any real meaning. I might as well say that my "race" differs from that of my brother, since he is tall with blonde hair and blue eyes, and I am short with brown hair and brown eyes. The differences between "white" people and "black" people, biologically speaking, are not generally greater than those found within populations of "white" people.
This is so basic that only a person completely ignorant of real scientific research on the subject or a person with an emotionally charged ideological agenda (and these are usually combined in the racist/racialist) would reject it.
"Only a white person could believe something like that?" All you have to do is read that line for an example of someone who treats science like magic. Since there is absolutely no scientific backing for the assertion of the existance of different "races," a belief in such obviously requires the type of belief in fairy tales that you insanely assert for those who believe the well-known results of extensive scientific research, what is actually common knowledge.
Red,
Thank you for bringing some sanity to this discussion.
Others,
The basic position of neoconservatives today is one of a “color-blind society.” It is basically the position of 1950s liberals. I ask you this: If it did not work for 1950s liberals, what makes you think it will work today? It is naive utopianism.
Paleoconservatives by and large reject nationalism. (Buchanan is an exception.) It is a construct of the 18th Century. Prior to the rise of this abstract nationalism, people had more loyalty to their immediate land, family and clans. Nationalists undermined this immediate loyalty by changing allegiances to abstract principles.
A more accurate term felt by paleoconservatives would be ‘patriotism’. As the etymology suggests (cf. Latin, Pater), it involves the relationship to one’s father, to one’s distant relatives, to one’s clan, to one’s neighboring clans, to one’s region. The original meaning of ‘nationalism’ (cf. Latin, natio) indicated something like this too, but that meaning was lost in the camps of Napoleon.
The reason I brought up bloodlines (which eluded poor Phil) was to show that one’s obligation would be stronger to an immediate relative, and even to a distant relative over a complete stranger in another land. It is a natural inclination for a mother to save the life of her child over the life of an unknown child in a distant foreign land.
White nationalists believe in a national bond between whites. Although paleoconservatives do not deny that such a bond may be felt, they argue that one’s more natural allegiances are to one’s local clan / tribe / region, etc. People should be able to live in small communities, as they see fit, without the interference of Big Brother.
I agree with Red’s estimation above, but I also think that influences for paleoconservatives are Aristotle and Cicero.
In the essay, “What is Paleoconservatism?,” Chilton Williamson defines it as:
“Paleoconservatism is the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture—an identity that is both collective and personal. This identity is missing from the psychological and emotional makeup of leftists of every stripe—including “neoconservatives”—and is now disavowed by mainline conservatives of the Republican variety, seemingly bent on eradicating as much of the primeval stain as they can from their consciousnesses while apologizing for the faint discoloration that remains.”
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/January2001/0101RoundTable.htm
>The basic position of neoconservatives today is one of a “color-blind society.” It is basically the position of 1950s liberals. I ask you this: If it did not work for 1950s liberals, what makes you think it will work today? It is naive utopianism.
That’s not accurate. At all. What didn’t work in the 1950s, or 1960s, or any time ever, and will never work any time every, is forced integration. The myth of “race” has been used in attempts at social engineering. The idea of a “color-blind society” isn’t what failed. Race-based policies are what failed (and they continue to fail, as Affirmative Action clearly demonstrates). They will always fail, because policies based on “race” are based on myth.
What has been done for a number of decades now is unrelated to the idea of a color-blind society. Forced integration is obviously not any more color blind than forced segregation.
Today’s so-called “neoconservative” idea of color-blindedness is completely different, in that there is no insane attempt to force integration, segregation, create policy, hire, or whatever, based on mythical “race.”
“Well, son, as any anthropologist or social scientist who didn’t get a mail-order degree knows, there’s nothing “scientific” to back up the interesting notion of different races in any meaningful biological sense.
Now, if you are going to expand the term “race” out to include things such on the same level as the observable differences between, for example, people who are referred to as “white” and people who are referred to as “black,” the term “race” loses any real meaning. I might as well say that my “race” differs from that of my brother, since he is tall with blonde hair and blue eyes, and I am short with brown hair and brown eyes. The differences between “white” people and “black” people, biologically speaking, are not generally greater than those found within populations of “white” people. “
There are obvious biological differences between the races – skin pigment, facial features, musculature, hair texture. We know blacks have different health issues such as sickle cell anemia. If race is a “myth”, than why are there medications aimed at individual races?
If there are no biological differences between the races, how can we have and why do we have, different cultures? If we all really are one big human blob of biological homogeneity, how can this be?
Further, if race does not exist on a biological level then how do crime scene investigators accurately predict the race of a perpetrator based on DNA evidence? Look at how different any two people of the same race are due to tiny, tiny genetic differences.
If you would send a blood sample to the good folks at DNAPrint Genomics, Inc., (www.dnaprint.com), they’d be happy tell tell you, through genetic analysis, whether you are European, Jewish (Ashkenazi or Sephardic), Arab, many types of Asian, or African, or others. How could they do that if there wasn’t a genetic basis for race and biological variation by race?
If race does not exist, then why will two white parents always produce white offspring? Likewise everyone else. If race did not exist, you could marry whomever you liked, and the race of your children would be totally random.
Claiming that the races don’t exist is like claiming that the sexes don’t exist. If there is no such thing as a black man or a white woman, then couldn’t it also be said that there’s no such thing as a man or a woman, period? After all, both the races and the sexes have unique characteristics (both physical and otherwise) that make identifying them very easy. If the differences between the supposed races are merely made up, and the races don’t actually exist, then couldn’t the differences between the sexes also be “myths”, and the sexes themselves be nonexistent?
Couldn’t you say this about any “group” using the same logic.
I mean, if you go up high enough in an airplane you’ll see that human beings share certain biological characteristics, such as eyes, feet, mouth, etc., with lesser creatures. Therefore, “man” is merely a “myth”.
“Today’s so-called “neoconservative” idea of color-blindedness is completely different, in that there is no insane attempt to force integration, segregation, create policy, hire, or whatever,”
Without a doubt, that would be wonderful.
.Doghouse,
The idea that race is not a valid scientific entity is a rather new suggestion by politically correct (primarily) social scientist. It is clearly an idea that is intended to validate a political dogma. It did not arise because the science demands it. In fact, the casual observer knows it is false.
This is really beyond my expertise, but the often stated justification for this counterintuitive idea that there is more genetic difference within groups than between is meaningless. This is dishonestly playing with the numbers. Because we all share a very significant amount of DNA in common. Similar to the way that the evolutionists often state that we share 98 or 99% of our DNA with the Chimpanzee. We are dealing with numbers on the margin. So the fact that the between group differences are less than the intra group differences is misleading. And it does not rule out the idea that groups exist.
For example, recent genetic studies reveal that domestic dogs of every type are entirely wolves in their DNA. In fact, it has been suggested that they be reclassified as a subspecies of wolf instead of a separate species. But only a fool would suggest that Chihuahuas and Great Danes are a “social construct.”
Another way of illustrating this would be that height which is very genetic (assuming adequate nutrition) differs more within group than between. So what. We can still say that on average Caucasians are taller than Asians even though Yao Ming is much taller than Michael J. Fox.
We can use DNA to determine race. Forensic DNA experts have been doing this for a while.
Your formulation would play havoc with zoological nomenclature as we know it.
The differences between “white” people and “black” people, biologically speaking, are not generally greater than those found within populations of “white” people
In this article; http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no4/rm-race.html , there is a diagram of genetic distance between human populations. Lest you worry about the impure source, the diagram is taken from an article in Molecular Biology , written by two non-whites (Japanese and Indian) . Non-white, non-western people are generally less squeemish about these things.
Which is the genetically superior species: Chihuahuas or Great Danes?
Which is the genetically superior “race”: whites or non-whites?
This is the point that seems to be missed or ignored (deliberately) when comparing discussions of race and human beings to “zoological nomenclature.”
One discussion involves the classification of living things for purposes of scientific analysis, the other is, as one of the “fathers real conservatism” pointed out, a belief that “the White community is ENTITLED [to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically], because, for the time being, IT IS THE ADVANCED RACE. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but IT IS A FACT that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.”
THIS DISCUSSION HAS MOVED TO A NEW THREAD: “In Their Own Words: The Undisguised Racism of the Far, Far, Far Right”.
Phil, Cato appears to be a disgruntled paleoconservative who’s at odds with the GOP, where paleoconservatives have been increasingly overshadowed, and the progress in civil rights that our nation had made during the Civil Rights Movement. Need I remind Cato that a higher proportion of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act? Does he know about the ’64 and ’68 presidential elections in which Goldwater and Wallace, candidates who opposed the civil rights legislation of the era, lost in massive landslides respectively? Is he aware that not all paleoconservatives share his views on race, including their most prominent spokesman, Pat Buchanan? Although Buchanan is vocally critical of third world immigration, he is supportive of first world immigration, assimilation of legal immigrants residing in our country, and colorblind policies–which may explain his pick of a black female running mate during the ’00 election. Cato seems to hold the idea that the white race is the most superior, yet he has not shown credible scientific evidence of this idea. He should know that God created all races and although each race has its differences, there is no perfect, ideal race. As a nonwhite conservative, I believe that most (at least I hope) Americans judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. The United States of America has always been a state consisting of people from all parts of the world, and we have always managed to remain strong and united as one nation despite our trials and hardships.
Michelle:
One side argues about terminology.
The other side speaks about morality.
That about says it all.