The commonsense solution to America’s race problem
In a comment yesterday about the racial gap in competence and law-abidingness and how it is exacerbated by racial preferences, I asked what is the solution. Here was my answer:
Society must (1) return to traditional morality and authority; (2) acknowledge the truth about racial differences, thus freeing itself of the destructive lie of racial sameness which drives minority racial preferences and white guilt; (3) eliminate all minority racial preferences; (4) eliminate most anti-discrimination laws; (5) allow for normal segregation at the local level; and (6) reject white guilt as the false and evil thing it is. If we did these things, blacks could make acceptable lives for themselves in communities and institutions geared to their abilities and aspirations, and whites would stop destroying civilization in the insane effort to make blacks equal to themselves.
From a conservative—or rather a traditional liberal—American perspective based on belief in the individual and the idea that people should be judged by the content of their character, this is not a radical proposal. When white people perform in life at a less than ideal level, society doesn’t particularly worry about that. But when black people perform at a less than ideal level, the entire society bends itself out of shape in a hysterical effort to improve blacks’ abilities and outcomes, to “close the gap.” If we simply accepted that people’s lives are a reflection of their abilities, qualities, and interests, then we could let individuals of any race perform at their natural level and not sweat the results. If some black people do very well in life, fine. If other black people perform at a mediocre or below average level, well, that’s just the way it is. That is the American approach to the problem, as contrasted with the racial Marxism that now dominates our thinking and policies.
- end of initial entry -
Buck O. writes:
This is good. It’s a prescription for a solution. It’s a strategic outline for what should be. But, it still doesn’t effect action. What should we, any of us, now do, that we aren’t already doing? And isn’t this something that should have, or even possibly could have been done many, many decades ago? How in heck does this get done now?
When I go out my front door today, what actions do I take that I wasn’t already planning to take? Who do I talk to or attempt once again to persuade?
Or, are we all simply stuck in the mud that we made? We need to do something more than to chronicle our destruction and profile our sad list of hapless candidates on which we can waste another vote.
People need a metaphysical slap in the face, most an actual one. But, who to slap, and then what? Call a lawyer to defend me in court?
We have many prescriptions for a solution, and we’ve left them on the table over a century ago.
Vote for the right people and recall or impeach the wrong ones. Impeach the activist judges. Pass the necessary constitutional amendments … but we do none of these things. Why? Because more want what we have than don’t. How do we get around that? How do we reverse a century of nation destruction and the deadening of its people, who are growing quickly into a minority?
Insufficient numbers and insufficient will. We’ve buried ourselves under modern liberalism. Unless we’re ready to swing shovels out in the street, we’re whistling to history. And, who do we swing them at. Ghosts of the past? Ourselves?
I hate thinking this way, but I’m still alive. Either we face the truth and come up with concrete and effective action, which will cause civilizational upheaval and pain, or we just keep rearranging the chairs as they’re destroyed one-by-one.
Paul Gottfried writes:
You have articulated perfectly my own position on these delicate matters. Although I’ve no desire to oppress other races, whites have to stop wailing about racial injustice if things are to get any better. Needless to say, we also have to give up all the foolishness that the misnamed civil rights movement engendered for other categories of politically designated victims. Nonetheless, I suspect that whatever harm black victimology has produced pales in insignificance beside the implications of the feminist and gay causes. One resulted in encouraging whites to turn themselves into a pariah class; the other movements have made successful war on social normality and the future of the family.
Karl J. writes:
You wrote:
Society must (1) return to traditional morality and authority; (2) acknowledge the truth about racial differences, thus freeing itself of the destructive lie of racial sameness which drives minority racial preferences and white guilt;
If we return to the morality and authority of the Declaration of Independence, then step (2) will be unnecessary. The fundamental truth that all human beings are equal in natural rights is self-evident, in that the opposite is self-contradictory. Whatever non-essential differences between people exist, they have no bearing on rights.
LA replies:
If invoking the Declaration of Independence—which conservatives do all the time—had been enough, then we never would have found ourselves under the rule of modern liberalism which is the opposite of the Declaration of Independence. Obviously other beliefs have led us as a society away from the Declaration of Independence. If we want to get back to it, we have to confront and undo those beliefs. You could repeat the Declaration of Independence a million times and it will not dislodge the current dominant view that all races are equal in abilities, and that blacks’ lower level of achievement is therefore caused by some factor external to blacks, namely the racism of the white majority.
Lydia McGrew writes:
I would add to your common sense approach to racial problems something I’m sure you would agree with: Engage in no-nonsense, full-scale law enforcement with no excuse-making for black crime. If this means more black people in prison for committing crimes, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may.
I have a correspondent who lives in Chicago. Evidently the police chief there was recently addressing gang violence, not simply against other gangs but against random people in the city. I don’t have the text of his speech, but my correspondent says that he tried to blame Jim Crow laws in the past for present violence! So, instead of getting out there and stopping the crime, the Chicago police chief makes excuses for it. I delicately suggested to my correspondent and some other Chicagoans on Facebook that the violence is not being dealt with and stopped because of police fears of being considered “racist.” They agreed whole-heartedly and without hesitation that this is the case. In other words, crime which endangers the safety of the streets for people to go about and do their normal business is being winked at out of fear of too many arrests of blacks, too much clashing between blacks and police, and accusations of racism.
A straightforward law-and-order conservatism that cares nothing for the race of the perpetrators, that arrests them and prosecutes them if they deserve it, would be a huge improvement.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 06, 2011 09:05 AM | Send