Newsweek was very much liberal in its politics, as is illustrated by a story it ran in 2006 on the topic of race/ethnicity.
The story was a left-liberal criticism of the right-liberal attitude to race.
The right-liberal attitude to race is easy enough to spell out. Liberals want individuals to be self-determining. Therefore, they believe that predetermined qualities like race shouldn't matter.
Right-liberals hold to this consistently. They believe in a colour blind society in which the only thing that matters is who we are as individuals. In Australia this right-liberal position is a minority view, though it has an influential supporter in columnist Andrew Bolt. Bolt has written of how he once attempted to identify with his family's Dutch heritage but that,
Later I realised how affected that was, and how I was borrowing a group identity rather than asserting my own. Andrew Bolt's.
So I chose to refer to myself as Australian again, as one of the many who join in making this shared land our common home.
Yet even now I fret about how even nationality can divide us.
To be frank, I consider myself first of all an individual, and wish we could all deal with each other like that. No ethnicity. No nationality. No race. Certainly no divide that's a mere accident of birth.
Traditionalists like myself reject this attitude because it means that we only identify with ourselves - a tremendously individualistic if not narcissistic position to take and one that denies a love of a larger tradition that we belong to.
But left-liberals are also dissatisfied with the right-liberal view. Left-liberals believe that if we are colour blind that race distinctions, in particular racial inequalities, will remain in existence. Therefore, to make race not matter (i.e. equal outcomes) it is necessary to "see" race rather than be blind to it, in order to deliberately intervene to bring down the better performing race (the "privileged" race) in favour of the underperforming one (the "oppressed" race).
Why do left-liberals believe that racial inequalities will continue if a society is colour blind? That's a really interesting question, because if we really are all equal in the sense of being on average the same, then a colour blind society should produce equal outcomes over time.
There are several possible answers to the question. The official one is that left-liberals believe that "whiteness" itself is an artificial social construct invented to justify the systematic oppression of the non-white other. Therefore, anyone who supports a white identity is assumed to be a defender of "white supremacy" (since left-liberals believe that whiteness has the purpose of creating a privilege over others). It means too that the achievement of equality depends on the deconstruction of a white society.
So for left-liberals being colour blind in a white society won't create equal outcomes, even if we are all born the same. The white society itself has to go.
The left-liberal view is therefore more complicated than the right-liberal one. The aim remains that of making race not matter, but to achieve this one has to "see" race and treat races differently. And because whiteness is thought to be the origin of racism, discrimination and inequality, then a white identity is morally tainted, whereas other identities are more positively associated with the struggle for justice, or else are simply regarded as expressions of culture.
The right-liberal view is strongest in the U.S., but in most of the West the left-liberal view has triumphed. And perhaps one reason for its victory is that a colour blind society hasn't led to race not mattering. On a range of indicators some races do better than others. This strengthens the hand of those who believe in direct intervention to force equal outcomes.
That's a lot of theoretical background, but I think it explains the Newsweek story, which I'll cover in my next post.
"Left-liberals believe that if we are colour blind that race distinctions, in particular racial inequalities, will remain in existence. Therefore, to make race not matter (i.e. equal outcomes) it is necessary to "see" race rather than be blind to it, in order to deliberately intervene to bring down the better performing race (the "privileged" race) in favour of the underperforming one (the "oppressed" race)."ReplyDelete
That reminds me of something written in this article by a left-liberal (or Cultural Marxist if you prefer):
Soul-searching over the Lawrence case was put on hold as a range of rightwing commentators rushed to condemn Abbott for her "racism". Surely this was proof – just as the BNP argued – that racism "cuts both ways"? Well, no. As one defender of Abbott neatly put it: "I can imagine a world in which Diane Abbott's tweet … would be racist. In this parallel universe Britain is dominated, politically and economically, by an unshakeable clique of black, working-class women and two black men have just been convicted, several years too late, thanks to an institutionally racist black police force, of the murder of white teenager Stephen Lawrence."
What do you think, is this writer expressing this particular left-liberal viewpoint that you speak of?
I try to be patient with Liberals because i used to be one (like so many of us on here)ReplyDelete
The media and the educational systems are all liberal so they are very rarely ever exposed to anything else.
The irony is ALL RACES think in ethnic terms they don't think as "individuals".
All Liberals are doing is essentially committing suicide.
Most things associated with liberalism in America (e.g. businesses, entertainment, media, colleges) will go out of business due to the debt in the USA.ReplyDelete
"Therefore, to make race not matter (i.e. equal outcomes) it is necessary to "see" race rather than be blind to it, in order to deliberately intervene to bring down the better performing race (the "privileged" race) in favour of the underperforming one (the "oppressed" race)."ReplyDelete
Unless the better performing race is not White. Then no intervention is necessary, or intervention is still necessary, but in the direction of making things even better for the ascendant non-Whites, and worse for the lagging Whites.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-White.
You gave the "official explanation" from the left-liberals for why color blindness will not lead to equal outcomes. I believe that the true, unofficial explanation is that left-liberals believe in inherent racial differences in achievement. This belief causes them to feel a lot of guilt, which they relieve with denial of their own beliefs, and attacks upon right-liberals and traditional conservatives.ReplyDelete
I believe that the true, unofficial explanation is that left-liberals believe in inherent racial differences in achievement. This belief causes them to feel a lot of guiltReplyDelete
Clark Coleman, that's exactly what I also had in mind as an unofficial reason why left-liberals don't believe colour-blindness will be enough.
I can't prove it but I get the sense that some white liberals believe that whites and/or white soicety is higher achieving and then their formal commitment to egalitarianism kicks in to make them feel embarrassed or guilty about this - guilty in their own skin so to speak - rather than proud of what their ancestors or Western societies have achieved.
Their psychological reflex to feeling guilt/embarrassment/discomfort is to want to advance non-Western/non-white peoples and to disassociate themselves from/bring down their own.
I think this is a key difference in the liberal/traditionalist mindset.
The traditionalist enjoys the sense of connection he has to his own tradition and wants those from other traditions to do the same. Within this mindset, comparisons of superiority or inferiority are not the critical thing.
But liberals don't have this "everyone enjoying membership of their own tradition as the critical thing whilst working patiently to improve things" approach.
If you think race/ethnicity shouldn't matter, but you take yourself and your own society to be superior, then the guilt/embarrassment/discomfort and perhaps feeling a need for redemption in regard to others will kick in.
What you write is true. It's not just objectively a matter of higher performing or lower performing races. After all, Asian Americans are doing best but they get a free pass from liberals (they even get to claim disadvantge).
I think the problem, first, is that "whiteness" has been tagged as the social construct blocking the path to equality and social justice by the left. So the left filters reality through this particular lens. The end goal of the left is the deconstruction of recognisably white societies.
The second problem is that this is a dynamic being played out within the white political class, so the "subject" is thought to be white rather than Asian and the non-white "other" to whom redemption is thought to be owed (the "object") is black. If Asians were to generate a liberalism of their own, then perhaps the terms would be different.
Only God knows all the bizarre twisted ways that man tries to atone for his sins, but liberalism is one of them. It's just like any other straitjacketing superstition.ReplyDelete
Am I the only one having an insanely difficult time proving I'm not a robot? At least seven tries!
I was thinking of this post and your last past ("Don't be that guy 2"), and I realized that, together, they expose feminist rape theory as the lie that it is.ReplyDelete
Patriarchal theory maintains that men rape women because they are "other" and powerful people oppress those who are different from themselves. Feminists deny that sexual attractiveness plays a role.
Anti-racism theory maintains that whites mistreat non-whites because they are "other" and powerful people oppress those who are different from themselves. Anti-racists deny that individual moral failings play a role.
Taking the claims of the two theories together, we should expect white men, being the most powerful people according to liberals, to oppress others most frequently and to commit the most rapes. We should also expect white men to rape black women more than any others, as they are the least powerful and most other people to white men according to liberals.
Funny, the reality is precisely the opposite: white men far fewer rapes than black men, although white men are more powerful, and somewhat more rapes than Asian men, although Asian men are more powerful. White men rape black women the least of any demographic. Some years according to the FBI, no American white man rapes a black woman at all.
Thus, patriarchal rape theory must be false.
They will spin it so that white male oppression is actually keeping blacks down, they see how rich whites are and how poor blacks are by a "white" system and they equate that with oppression which forces blacks to rape/commit crimes more.
The rationale changes, but the recommendation is always the same: more intervention to elevate the non-Whites at the expense of the Whites.ReplyDelete
Now it's a matter of equal outcomes; now it's fine to have unequal outcomes as long as the difference is to the detriment of the Whites. Now it's about historical oppression; now historical oppression is irrelevant. (In European countries where there never was any non-White presence and there was also no history of colonialism, the mass importation and elevation of non-Whites is still a political necessity.) Now it's due to the belief that there are no inherent racial differences in achievement; now they do believe in inherent racial differences in achievement, but that doesn't let the Whites off the hook. Now it's about Whites being guilty in their White skin (including European Whites who never had non-Whites among them and were not colonialists?); now the ruling class is increasingly non-White (including Jews who go not see themselves as White and see themselves collectively as victims of Whites) and yet the anti-White agenda goes forward with increased or at least undiminished vigor. When the "subject" of history is "us Whites" the recommendation is that non-Whites must be elevated and Whites driven down, but when the "subject" of history is "us Jews" or "us Asians" or "us Blacks" or "us native peoples" (or "us" anyone else) the recommendation is that non-Whites must be elevated and Whites driven down. Now racial stereotypes and hostility are wrong and evil and must be remedied by force (at the expense of the Whites); now racial stereotypes (like "trailer trash", "poor White trash", "evil rednecks" and so on) and hostility based on them (like "vomiting, head-exploding hatred for Sarah Palin, just for who she was and not for any original ideas he had politically) is fine, as long as the hatred and the stereotyping is at the expense of the Whites.
Mark Richardson: "I think the problem, first, is that "whiteness" has been tagged as the social construct blocking the path to equality and social justice by the left."
That's right. But when that is not the rationale for anti-Whiteness, anti-Whiteness does not abate, rather it continues with different rationales.
Mark Richardson: "So the left filters reality through this particular lens."
Or through a Black resentment lens, or through a Jewish resentment lens, or through an Asian resentment lens, or through a Brown Pride / La Raza lens, or through the lense of "diversity" meaning "less Whites, more non-Whites" - any lens that will produce a picture to rationalize anti-White hostility and anti-White policy, which continues even after Whites are disempowered and reduced to a tiny, withering, despised and constantly endangered minority, as in Zimbabwe.
Mark Richardson: "The end goal of the left is the deconstruction of recognisably white societies."
"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-White."
What part of that is inaccurate?
Anti-Whiteness is the reality; anti-racism, or leftism, or various "liberation" movements etc. are no more than expendable and replaceable rationales for anti-White hostility and anti-White policy.ReplyDelete
A leftist agenda (often supported by right liberals) of open borders for all (and only) White countries, combined with chronic mass non-white immigration and forced integration, assimilation, and ultimately, inevitably intermarriage, necessarily implies the wiping away of all White nations and also the White race.
Practically speaking, this is genocide.
Morally speaking, it's also genocide.
Especially when you consider that it's driven by anti-White hostility and an anti-White agenda that persists regardless of the various bogus and expendable rationales for it.
The personnel of the anti-White coalition (under whatever label) are non-White (like Jeremiah Wright), and White (like Tom Hayden), and both White and non-White. (I am thinking of people like Mike Wallace, who is regarded by Whites as White and "one of us" but who has said that he is Jewish and not White, or Tim White, "anti-racist" campaigner, who is "White" when it suits him, "Jewish" when it suits him, and always viciously anti-White.) What unites them is anti-White hostility, an endless appetite for anti-White policy, and the tendency of predators and bullies to crowd around a wounded victim, attacking and trying to get their share of the spoils.
They cannot be acquitted of malice.
Back on the main topic, I am not upset about the fall of Newsweek either.
I don't think malicious, genocidal anti-White propagandists deserve much sympathy or any support.
I enjoy reading your comments, daybreaker.ReplyDelete
I must give credit to Mark Richardson, who supplied me with some of my ideas (mostly on feminism), and challenged some other ideas I had and forced me to improve them.