Why a minority person disagrees with my article on interracial rape

(Note: Be sure to see Dunnyveg’s comment reporting Eugene Genovese’s finding that sexual relations between master and slave were extremely rare. I find this surprising, even hard to believe, for reasons I give in my reply.)

Reginald R. writes:

I just finished reading your article on FrontPageMag.com, on the Truth about Rape. And I can tell you that as a minority and as a conservative minority, I am very disappointed that you failed to look past the surface and instead choose to settle for a rather simplistic view of rape. Furthermore, as a minority who is a voting conservative as in I vote Republican a majority of the time, it is articles like these that tell me that I am unaccepted in “white conservative” America, and that I should switch my efforts and try to change the mindset of Democrats to become more conservative, then to change the mindset of Republicans to become more racially accepting.

But addressing the matters at hand, why did I disagree with your article?

1. Failure to mention slavery. African-Americans may bring up the subject at inopportune moments but here it is most relevant. It brought them here to this country, and made them who they are today. My name [British-sounding surname] and the consistency of tan skin instead of dark black skin, didn’t occur because an African man and African woman had relations, but instead I white man raped a black slave in the Caribbean. And this occurred all over the Americas. It is unknown how many black slave woman were raped by their oppressors, but the numbers can range form 1-100%, but from the evidence alone it could be said that the numbers are over 50%.

2. Backlash. In the eyes of a minority it looks like it is generally accepted that when suspected of a crime, black men are more easily to be believed to be the perpetrators. However, when the assailant is white America goes out of its way to disprove that he could not have committed the crime especially when the crime is committed against a victim of another race. This begins with media scrutiny and fascination, and ends with jury favoritism, and presents overwhelming odds against minority victims. Using your own example with Duke University who held a party, hired a black stripper, and were yelling racial slurs at minorities walking past the house, even if you don’t believe that they committed rape, which is perfectly fine as it is in America that you are innocent till proven guilty; from the minute that the case was made public there was public scrutiny which comprised of campus marches, talk show radio shows lambasting the victim, and articles just like yours explaining any and all reasons why this could not have happened. Why would any woman file charges against someone when they know that this is the result. And imagine if this was a small town, where everyone would know the girl and give her the same negative attention.

My question to you is why are a majority of your articles concerning race or minorities? Are racial issues the most prominent reason for trouble in America? I think that they play a role in today’s society but it is not worth the amount of discussion that you center your articles on. Please refocus your articles on issues that play a bigger role in America, where I believe as you do that conservative principles can be the guide for leading America in he right direction!

LA replies:

My article was a very brief article making one point about interracial rape in one year. Your notion that the slavery which ended in the U.S. 140 years ago is relevant to this issue and should have been brought up by me in such an article shows that you are trying to relativize (or perhaps even justify) the black rape of white women by saying, “whites did it to blacks too.” That’s called liberalism in my book.

Your point about the supposed racist behavior of the Duke students is irrelevant to my article.

Your idea that society more readily finds blacks guilty of crimes out of racial prejudice is a BIG LIE. You don’t seem to be aware that blacks commit violent crime such as armed robber and rape and other offenses at about eight times the rate of whites. That’s why so many blacks are in jail, not because of supposed racism.

Your idea that we should just forget about racial issues would certainly serve the purposes of the liberal orthodoxy. You don’t seem to notice that that same liberal orthodoxy blames all the failures and dysfunctions of blacks on white America’s supposed racism. That’s the status quo that you want me to go back to and support. No thanks.

The chief reason to bring these racial issues up is that the West is committing suicide out of white racial guilt. Indispensable to curing that guilt is realizing that whites are not responsible for the dysfunctions of blacks and have nothing to be guilty about. Or, rather, what they have to be guilty about is that they’ve attributed an undeserved racial guilt to themselves and so have set themselves on the path to extinction.

See my article, “Guilty Whites.”

- end of initial entry -

Jeremy C. writes:

Reginald R. writes in regard to the subject of inter-racial rape:

“Failure to mention slavery. African-Americans may bring up the subject at inopportune moments but here it is most relevant. It brought them here to this country, and made them who they are today.”

Yes, it certainly did make them what they are today. Much better off than had they remained in Africa. I refuse to apologize for slavery.

Being amidst the white culture and civilization under any circumstances is a positive for blacks. It is to their benefit to have come historically into contact with white, western civilization and culture under any situation—slavery included.

No apologies are necessary, no alibis needed, no backward stance to be taken.

LA replies:

At one point I would certainly not have agreed with you. The slave trade and slavery were historic crimes. But frankly the liberals and blacks played out their hand on this a long time ago, and America has done everything it reasonably could have done to make up for this, a long time ago. In the early 1990s, as we were sitting in Central Park talking, a friend of mine stood up and delivered a spontaneous speech (with me as the sole audience) on the theme, “Why the debt of slavery is paid.” It was one of the most inspiring orations I’ve heard in my life. Unfortunately it was never written down.

Mark Jaws writes:

No doubt you remember my story about my numerous encounters on radio talk shows with blacks who believe the Jews of the Bible looked like Whoopi Goldberg and Denzel Washington, and my unsuccessful attempt to derail them from their delusions.

Here is another story to remind you of the futility of attempting to reason with these people. Twenty years ago I still thought it was possible to intelligently discuss social issues with blacks and to somehow win them to the conservative side. My political mentor at the time, a gentleman named Paul Callahan, politely told me that I was wasting my time. To prove his point, he suggested I ask a question which had a slam-dunk answer and to observe the “vast gulf of perception” between blacks and whites. Remember, this was 10 years before OJ.

Being a military officer at the time, I decided to ask 20 blacks, 20 whites, and 20 Hispanics if they had thought the Army was better under Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan. 95 percent of the whites and 80 percent of the Hispanics said that it had definitely been better under Reagan and they offered reasons why they thought that way—e.g., better pay, more money for training, increased deployments, better equipment, etc. But 90 percent of blacks believed that the Army had been better under Carter. Not one of them could give me a valid answer—rather to them, “it just seemed better under Carter.”

So, why do you, the best blogger on the Internet, IMHO, bother to reason with people who have so consistently demonstrated that they are incapable of using reason and logic to formulate their positions on important issues? Mr. Auster, you surely know that if we are to get off this flight path of self imposed racial extinction, it will be through our efforts, and only through our efforts.

LA replies:

When I reply to a person who seems too far apart from me to have a useful discussion, my purpose is not to persuade that person, but to demonstrate something about the thinking of that person to other readers.

A reader writes:

Steve Sailer wrote four years ago on the most recent data and extrapolated therefrom on just how many Southern slaveowners participating in miscegenation (“Strom Thurmond Really Was Exceptional!”). He concluded that the figure was actually about one percent—and no more than three percent.

The only thing I’m not clear on is how he’s factoring in the fairly large-scale migration of Negroes to the North that took place in the mid-20th Century. It’s been a point of controversy on the IQ question, since Negroes in the North were typically higher IQ than those in the South. The explanation usually proffered for this was that the more intelligent Negroes were more likely to move to the North at that time—who, we may assume, would be probably have more white genes.

Steven R. writes:

I am curious to know if Reginald R. would be willing to debate Shelby Steele on his assertion that Republicans need ‘to become more racially accepting’. Since Reginald R. votes Republican he should, no doubt, trust a group of Black Republicans to be the perfect judges for such a debate.

If Reginald R. read the least portion of Mr. Steele’s “White Guilt” I doubt that he would even consider the possibility of success in such a debate. As the book so clearly demonstrates, RR clearly hasn’t the foggiest notion of the toxicity caused by his position.

Reginald R. replies:

I believe that you have failed to understand my disagreements with your article so I shall articulate them clearer.

1. The mention of slavery is exactly to incite that whites committed the same crimes to blacks that you say that they are not committed today. This was not to give blacks an excuse to commit the same crime against the opposite race, but instead to give light to what you failed to mention in your article. Asking that this FACT be stated within your article, is not called liberalism, but instead its honoring the journalistic standards that you are entrusted with by your readers. Furthermore, quoting from Wikipedia does not add to your journalistic ethos, as every profession including my own would find Wikipedia as in invalid source of information.

2. After reading your email, I was somewhat baffled, as to what exactly you choose to respond too. In my second point that I made was clearly focused around the hurdles that minority victims face when reporting rape. However, you Sir choose to address the criminal statistics surrounding black males and why there are more of them in prison, which I never argued the reasons for or against the troubling statistics. In a sense, you are proving my point that America would interject guilt before trial, by reflecting on those statics as evidence. But again, just to reemphasize my point, is that you never once addressed the turmoil of minority rape victims.

3. I reread one last time, just to make sure that I was not missing something, and again I found an error in your logic. You said, “Your idea that society more readily finds blacks guilty of crimes out of racial prejudice is a BIG LIE.” However, in reading my original statement, I said “In the eyes of a minority it looks like it is generally accepted that when suspected of a crime, black men are more easily to be believed as the perpertraitors.” So my opinion on a minority view of judgment in society is a lie. And you know this because you as well are a minority and have a different view on society, or have taken a poll on the opinions of how many other minorities view the social principles?

4. I do not hate the word liberal or liberalism as you do. An argument needs to sides to find answers, and although I do believe that their direction and principles are wrong for the wellbeing of the country, I do attest that without their viewpoints and racial activism, I would not be able to discuss with you, the manner that I am doing so now. Furthermore, attaching ‘names’ to people who view your opinion differently does not prove that their opinions are wrong, but instead only gives notice that your name calling is a sign that you can not refute their arguments.

5. Finally, Sir, I never stated that racial issues should be ignored and I agree that there should be an honest discussion on race. However, the manner that you are conducting your discussion is not attempting to reach the “Truth” about racial issues in America, but instead your constant bombardment on anyone non-white is crossing the line and only taking a step backwards. If you are so confident and believe like I believe that you-yes you yourself is not guilty of a single atrocity against blacks or any other minority than why continuously write about the reasons why you are not guilty? Is it to aid your readers get over their guilt? Sir I can assure you that your readers have surely do not feel guilty and are reading your articles not for guidance, but for agreement. So then what exactly is the purpose and the result of your columns other than that which creates and supports the racists ideals that you seek not to be guilty of feeling.

LA replies with numbered points corresponding to Reginald’s numbered points:

1. The sexual relations between slave owners and slaves hundreds of years ago have no relevance—zero, zilch, nada—to the phenomenon of rape in today’s America and the fact that black on white rape is covered up by the media. Further, everyone knows that there were sexual relations between white masters and blacks slaves, so that fact is not in need of being uncovered. Clearly then your motive in insisting that I mention this historic fact in an article on interracial rape in today’s America is to soften the impact of the concealed truth of black on white rape by once again hitting white America over the head again with its supposed historic sins—which, by the way, have been greatly exaggerated, as suggested by the reference to the Sailer article above.

Also, it is your thinking that is entirely racial and group-oriented. Your notion of fairness is that, if I’m saying something that is critical of blacks, I must balance it by saying something critical of whites, even if it’s irrelevant to the subject at hand. Did you ever insist, when America has been bombarded with propaganda about white racism, that this propaganda be balanced with news about the violent crimes of blacks against whites? I somehow doubt it.

2. I was in fact responding to your underlying argument—which is that blacks are unfairly thought guilty of crimes.

By the “turmoil of minority rape victims” I suppose you mean Tawana Brawley and the black stripper in the Duke case.

3. I responding to the very widespread view of blacks that the reason so many blacks are in jail is that they are “set up” by racist whites rather than that they have committed crimes.

4. What you call name-calling is in fact conceptual thinking by which we can understand things according to their underlying principles. There is an actual, identifiable belief system called liberalism to which people subscribe and about which we can make sensible statements. People who are liberals tend to believe and say certain things. To point this out is not name calling.

5. I’ve already explained that central to the purpose of a traditionalist politics is to invalidate the false racial guilt that whites feel (or rather the false racial guilt which whites attribute to whites collectively though not to themselves individually) and that is leading our society to doom.

James W. writes:

Reginald R. dispays a common—and probably normal—need to soften the glare of disturbing realities in which he feels a greater personal stake than the next man might.

However, if my family or sphere of influence exhibits a social problem, the solution is to demand greater accountablity, not less of it.

When we argue for our limitations, we get to keep them.

Dunnyveg writes:

Conservatism itself is usually defined as conserving one’s culture. So it’s fair to ask which culture Reginald is trying to conserve—black culture or a white culture.

(Dunnyveg’s comment on slavery and miscegenation has been moved from this entry to a new one.)

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 13, 2007 10:53 PM | Send