The real thinking of nonwhites that white liberals do not understand
I was just listening to Dennis Prager, and his subject was Sotomayor. As he is wont to do, he was making the distinction between opposing a minority because of his race, and opposing him because of his beliefs. And then it occurred to me that for most minorities, it makes no difference why you oppose them. If a white opposes them, it’s entirely equivalent, in their minds, to opposing them because they’re black/Hispanic/etc. [LA replies: As ugly proof of your point, consider Maria Hinojosa’s taunting comments against McCain because of his vote against Sotomayor. McCain has been the ultimate champion of Hispanicizing the U.S. via open borders, but that earned him no credit with Hinojosa. The fact that he thought Sotomayor unqualified for the Court made him the racial enemy of Hispanics and deserving of defeat and humiliation. Nothing shows better the viciously tribal and tyrannical character of the Hispanic movement than Hinojosa’s remarks about McCain. ]
Thus, for example, it seems to me that when a black accuses a white of racism, the actual meaning, for the black person, of the word “racism” is usually: “Any opposition to me or to other blacks with whom I identify.” It appears to me that for most (American, at any rate) blacks, if a white opposes them for any reason, the white is automatically labeled “racist.” [LA replies: As I wrote in The Path to National Suicide: “‘Racism’ now apparently meant anything that, in the view of black people, hurt their interests or offended them or, indeed, anything they did not approve of.”]
This is part of the general leftist policy of never granting any legitimacy to the convictions of their opponents. If you oppose the left for any reason, you’re wicked. It’s also part of the tribal mindset: any opposition dishonors me and my people.
Another typically Pragerian moment occurred shortly after. A caller who identified himself as the editor of a Spanish language newspaper claimed that for most people he knows, the Republican party had “lost the trust” of most Hispanics, and would have a hard time winning it back. When Prager inquired what had caused this rift, the caller replied that it was mainly Republican opposition to “immigration reform” a couple of years ago. When Prager diplomatically inquired whether the caller thought that his readers would grant any legitimacy to American worries about mass immigration, the caller responded with equivocation and question-begging. Claiming that he was up against a “hard break,” Prager let him off the hook.
What Prager should have asked the caller, of course, is this: If millions of (white) Americans were immigrating to your home country, demanding English in all the institutions, demanding more whites in positions of power, demanding official recognition of American holidays, and so on, would you say that your people should give in to the demands, and also continue allowing mass immigration by Americans?
That would be speaking a language the caller understands, and to which he would respond.
I once gave a talk on immigration at the Temple University Law School in Philadelphia. In the question period, one of the students, a young black woman, challenged me on the racism of my position. I said to her: “If white and Asian immigrants were entering a black African country en masse and changing it into a white and Asian country, would you approve of that? She said forcefully and without hesitation, “I’d be against that.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 07, 2009 03:02 PM | Send
Our side must continually pose this type of question to the other side, to expose that their demand for white inclusion of nonwhites has nothing to do with any principle of justice, but is simply a racial tribal power move against whites. And if that’s what it is, then obviously whites have the same right to defend their territory that other races have.