End of an Era
The Collapse of Racial Liberalism

Both the Right and the Left have dropped the pretense of racial liberalism, and the country faces a choice.

Published on: March 2, 2018
Nils Gilman is vice president of programs at the Berggruen Institute and a monthly columnist for The American Interest.
show comments

    Just seems to me it’s a matter of priorities. I mean, the neo-nazi ran someone down in charlotte. We’ve got gang members gunning down and probably running down up to a dozen per weekend in Chicago alone. More of that going on than neo Nazis or school shootings and so on. I can tell you that I seems very disingenuous for some to come out swinging against neo nazis, as if they’re so common (they’re not), after one fatality while they say and so so little about the really deadly problems.

    • Vigilarus

      The neo-Nazi idiots provide the excuse needed to ignore inconvenient statistics. One hand washes the other…

  • Gary Hemminger

    I read this in its entirety and have no idea what this means. If you want to end racial discrimination then stop discriminating on the basis of race. that is the only thing that has any meaning to me. I have no idea what white privilege means. Is it the privilege that I as a white person had to live in an apartment in one room with 2 siblings as a child? Is it the privilege I had as a white person to wake up at 4am every morning when I was 13 years old to deliver papers to make $75 per month? Is it the privilege I had to work for 44 straight years without ever taking more than 2 weeks off at a time? Is that what they are talking about when they say white privilege? Because I have no freaking idea what they are talking about.

    • FriendlyGoat

      If we had a chart showing us the dollar value of what white people owned in America compared to what black and brown people owned in America, decade by decade from say 1700 forward to present day, adjusted for the relative size of the populations, we would understand what white privilege means. Without dwelling on the characteristics of certain individual lives (such as yours as described), there are broad measures to contemplate as to how wealth and power is divided between races. Today, if measuring by a summation of cash, real estate, financial investments, physical plant equipment, patents and brands (for instance) per capita by race, whites are winning big. The others keep wondering why and asking “When, if ever, does it level out or even trend toward leveling out?”

      • AnonymoussSoldier

        No, we wouldn’t understand what it is, because there is no such thing as white privilege. There is such a thing as class privilege, or at least to a point. I come from a white family that has been poor for centuries until my fathers go at life, and I’ve done fairly well for myself thus far. And then you have to look at all of the immigrants from different European countries, East Asian countries, the Jews, all of them coming over and more or less poor, yet within two generations are doing pretty well for themselves on average.

        • FriendlyGoat

          Well, by “the rule of large numbers”, there is a measureable discrepancy between the outcomes for various races in America, and probably worldwide. I understand that you (or maybe the broader we) don’t approve of the term “white privilege”. What explains the results? Some kind of superiority or inferiority? Some kind of systemic advantage or advantage-taking? Again, I am talking about the aggregation of sample sizes of millions or tens of millions of people—-not Gary’s family, your family or my family.

          • AbleArcher

            You misspelled IQ privilege. That’s mostly what it is. East Asians have been in America for a shorter time than most of the white or black population, yet they seem to excel and do very well, better than a lot of whites or blacks. It’s not 100% accurate and it’s not the only factor, but it’s darn important and darn close.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I didn’t misspell anything. I asked questions. You are supplying IQ as your opinion of an answer to the questions.
            If your answer might happen to be correct within the limitations expressed in your last line, what is world society to do about that? In other words, do you see East Asian domination of Euro-whites (as well as blacks and browns) as inevitable and desirable? Or is the acceptability of that a malleable concept if announced to the whites in America?

          • AbleArcher

            Dominated? What are you even talking about? You don’t even know yourself what you’re saying. It’s just the way it is. The discrepancy is an average IQ is not an opinion, that’s a fact. If I say it’s the most important factor that’s my opinion, although I don’t say that. It certainly is a factor. Life‘s not fair. Some people are prettier, taller or stronger and that’s just the way it is.

          • FriendlyGoat

            You suggested that Asians might be top of the heap for IQ. What I am asking you is whether American whites are prepared to cede world leadership to China on that “it is what it is” and “life’s not fair” postulate. It would be a variation of what blacks and browns have been asking for the past century.

          • CheckYourself

            He’s wrong because of what you just said. China china. China. Said in Donald’s voice of course. China is the poster child for unaccountable and unelected government. Big state owned enterprises. Big censorship. The whole lot. Supposedly Chinese have a comparatively high IQ to westerners same way Koreans or Japanese do. Then why do chinese always have such bad governance and less developed than japan till this day?

            The answer is that IQ plays a role, but it’s nowhere near the most important role.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, it’s true that the Chinese have been capable of muffing their government. Several decades ago, the Japanese certainly muffed theirs. About a third of the Koreans (in the North) have done so, up to the present. Now we are muffing ours.

          • AbleArcher

            Did I say it was the deciding factor on governance? No I didn’t. Germans have a pretty high average IQ themselves. They found themselves in some pretty bad situations over just the last 100 years, now didn’t they? Does that have much of anything to do with the individual person from Central Europe with an average IQ in the upper 90s? The answer is no, it doesn’t.

          • brian_in_arizona

            People and countries don’t “cede leadership” to others. It is taken away. And yes, it is very likely that Asia (China) will take world leadership away from the US and Europe, provided that it can hold things together over the long haul.

          • FriendlyGoat

            “Ceding” is what we do by deciding not to lead.

          • Anthony

            Fg, the IQ

          • FriendlyGoat

            I, too, have never been all that enamored with the IQ concept. Even if it is true that certain groups of individuals might be shown (as groups) to have superior intelligence by the “so-called measure”, when do they get smart enough to realize that such mental assets also burden them with the greatest duty to take care of everyone else? Or, put another way, what do they talk about at Mensa these days with respect to government or leadership?

          • Anthony

            The IQ angle has come and gone here at TAI (it was the special province of some former Via Meadia [WRM] commentators but their various hypotheses and arguments belied other motivation. Nonetheless, IQ is real , there’s no doubt about that (you have an obviously noticeable IQ). Beyond that, maybe just a month ago I came across (quite by accident) a scientific article noting its misuse and general representational misunderstanding (as the article was not news to me, I didn’t make a note of its salience). Still with all that said, IQ testing yields information generally unwanted because, among other things, it strikes at the basis of the democratic dogma: the doctrine of equality and the alleged ability of people to act with equal skill in their own interest. But, hey, given our muddy-mindedness about politics perhaps the argument relative to American sagging IQs may have merit.

          • FriendlyGoat

            We lack a general understanding that those with the highest IQ’s are equally capable of being our heroes or our villains. It’s not a good idea to celebrate those who are both able and willing to out-trade everyone else. It’s an even worse idea to reward those now in a position to purchase the artificial intelligence to out-trade everyone else. The duty of us not so “smart” is to maintain control of our directions with emotional intelligence. Our deficiency in that regard is why you find yourself having to write your last sentence above.

          • Anthony

            The Cubs Scout/Boys Scout early training is always present in your commentary! Bless you, my friend.

          • TangoMan

            when do they get smart enough to realize that such mental assets also burden them with the greatest duty to take care of everyone else?

            You work and you earn money, do you spend the money you earn equally on your wife and children and the family next door and the strangers across town? No you don’t. You have a greater interest in spending your money on your family than you do on strangers. These are circles of affinity. This is why we see high sharing societies arising in very homogenous societies, like Finland, where everyone shares the same values, same religion, same culture, same language, same racial characteristics, the affinity between people is greater in Finland than what we see in very diverse societies like America. There is no duty to take care of someone else, you just conjured up this duty and applied it to everyone in America when you yourself don’t follow this rule, you spend your earned money on yourself and your family in preference to strangers.

          • FriendlyGoat

            It is quite possible that the best explanation of the greater affinity of Finland people for each other is that they, at voter level, DECIDED to take care of each other in social matters. They may be happier and more glued together BECAUSE they are one of the world’s best present examples of individual sense applied by a group to a group.
            They not only enjoy the avoidance of many societal ills, but also can pat themselves and each other on the back for not being stupid about civic affairs. You are claiming that some shared tribalism causes this to work. I would argue that the accomplished choice of sensible government is probably what is really holding their “values” and “culture” together.

          • TangoMan

            How frequently do people decide that they want to take care of strangers while letting their family suffer deprivation and starvation? Your hypothesis is pie in the sky, no evidence and no reason backing it.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Can I assume that you ever attended any kind of publicly-funded school?

          • TangoMan

            Why is it that in places like Sweden and Canada there is growing dissatisfaction with high sharing welfare states while both nations are suffering the infection effects of diversity?

          • FriendlyGoat

            Most likely because the same kind of crap philosophy and theology electing both Putin and Trump is now spilling over borders. The fact of the matter is that MOST people have no practical alternatives to publicly-managed education and publicly-managed health care. Many SAY they do, but then notice they can’t afford to privately replace what they yell about politically. It’s Saturday. Gotta go do other things. Toodle-doo.

          • TangoMan

            Here is a photo of “Americans” voting in a Minnesota caucus meeting. Hundreds of millions of real Americans were quite content to allow women like these to die in Somalian civil wars and go to bed and have a peaceful night’s sleep after watching the news about Somalian tragedies.


            What the hell changes in your mind by shipping these women here? If you feel like they are your countrymen, then why don’t you take some of your own money and send it to Somalia so that they can build American quality high schools there, same with hospitals, etc. Like you wrote earlier, why don’t you just decide to share your wealth with your fellow human beings.

            As for me, I wouldn’t lift a finger to help these women who are now “Americans,” they’re nothing to me, in fact, they’re worse than nothing, they’re invaders, their presence here in America is a profane act.

          • StudentZ

            No, your words are profane. These are fellow citizens and members of my community (some of the younger faces in that picture were probably born here). They pay taxes, purchase goods, and fund services like the rest of us, so we are all donating to our local community, no matter how selfish our motives may seem to you. For most of us, interest in the well-being of others, including strangers, is a form of self-interest. We benefit from living in an altruistic society or, at the very least, a civilized one that recognizes tribalism is destructive and self-defeating. There are often diplomatic, economic, and political reasons behind countries’ refugee resettlement policies. In this case, you could probably examine the work of volunteer agencies (many of them religious), the State Department, and international relief efforts to understand why certain groups came here.

            Centuries of moral and political philosophers, as well as scientists, could respond to your bleak assessment of the human condition, but I think you’re just projecting. Perhaps you can find support for your nativism here, but that says more about the community than the value of your opinions. Someone with psychological issues would probably feel normal in a certain type of institution, too, but normal is relative. The beauty and horror of the Internet is that anonymity has given marginalized voices a platform for their more extreme views. Your views are extreme and discriminatory. You pass judgment as if your personal bias and selfishness vindicates or justifies your thoughts. You should at least embrace that, even if you can’t embrace large swaths of humanity or humanitarianism.

            Fortunately, not everyone is like you. Some people recognize narrow mindedness in their own families and communities and seek happiness elsewhere. Others realize enlightenment can be found in unexpected places. Your attitudes are not ubiquitous. For what it’s worth, I am fairly certain a number of the Somali people I have met would stop to help you without a second thought. What is so offensive about having Somali neighbors? Were the Somali high schoolers who held informal poetry readings in the back of the bus I took to work an affront to human dignity? Was my Somali professor, who worked his way from dish washing and factory work to a degree at Berkeley, somehow compromising my world view by broadening my horizons? What exactly are my fellow engineering students, along with local business and restaurant owners who happen to be Somali, taking away from my community? Should I hate the Somali taxi driver who went out of his way to find me and return my wallet when I left it in the back of his car? All of these people enrich the community in which I live. Of course, there are criminals and unsavory people who are Somali, as well, but criminality is not some inveterate Somali trait. The history of humanity proves that, and you have done a decent job of celebrating our worst impulses.

          • TangoMan

            For most of us, interest in the well-being of others, including strangers, is a form of self-interest. We benefit from living in an altruistic society or, at the very least, a civilized one that recognizes tribalism is destructive and self-defeating.

            You’re altruistic, then please send me all your money, I can make better use of it than you. Do you have children? There are kids in Africa who need resources more than your children, so send them your money and make your kids wear 10 year old hand-me downs or Salvation Army recycled clothes. Come on, live up to the BS you’re spewing.

            Your views are extreme and discriminatory.

            They’re not extreme. I can pull up census data for any city in America and show you how White Americans are paying through the nose to escape as much diversity as they possibly can. You, almost certainly, don’t live next to 10 Somalian families on your block. You, without a doubt, are happy to engage in empty posturing with your words but you won’t live true to those words.

            For what it’s worth, I am fairly certain a number of the Somali people I have met would stop to help you without a second thought.

            I don’t give a damn. They’re not Americans, they don’t belong here. Look, if I was in Somalia I would help people if I could, but that doesn’t mean that I’m Somalian and that I belong in their community. These people need to be rounded up and shipped back, they were brought here as refugees and the period of refuge is over.

            Was my Somali professor, who worked his way from dish washing and factory work to a degree at Berkeley,

            He’s stealing resources which were established for White Americans and special resources which were set aside for Black Americans through Affirmative Action programs. No one built these institutions with the purpose of spending scarce resources on him. His heritage is back in Somalia where his ancestors built civilization for their descendents.

          • StudentZ

            1. You confuse altruism for self-sacrifice. Helping others need not be a threat to your existence. That’s just a stance politicians take to justify unwarranted policy decisions. I will keep my money to fund my studies in Civil Engineering. Perhaps, unbeknownst to either of us, we will meet one day in a town hall forum where I am working with a group to resolve water shortages, flood control problems, or contaminated storm sewer systems. Then you can take credit for my efforts as a Caucasian, too, while demeaning some of the immigrants, including professors from Iran and Somalia, who taught me. You will insist there is nothing to be learned from them, when I know from personal experience there is. Your race is an ephemeral, inconstant concept that exists to boost the egos of those who can’t think of anything more interesting to support. It didn’t make you who you are, and it didn’t stop us from being completely different in every respect worth mentioning. I share no solidarity with you. You are a refugee from a bygone era.

            2. There is a difference between choosing to live in an upscale neighborhood (for various reasons) and denying the rights and citizenship of people from minority groups. Don’t normalize the latter by conflating the two. Also, I have no problem living with people from African countries. Am I supposed to point out that I studied abroad in Zimbabwe where I lived with a family in a black neighborhood for a semester, which doesn’t prove anything, or feel guilty that I chose to live in a building within walking distance of public transport, public parks, local doctors, and a shopping district just because its comparative lack of diversity suggests I’m a hypocrite? Yes, I currently live among people of mostly Scandinavian and Germanic descent, but here’s the rub: many of them seem more alien to me than my host family in Zimbabwe. Many of them are Lutheran, a denomination I’d never encountered before. They tend to champion unappetizing mushroom-laden casseroles, which are unveiled at office hotpot events. Some come from small rural areas where Minnesota is the center of the universe. I love that many of them are literate, interested in the environment, and willing to embrace an international community of scholars at the university, but that is true of most urban populations. When I graduate, I plan to move to a larger city (perhaps in a different country), so perhaps I will seem like less of a hypocrite to you then. Regardless, I have done and said nothing to suggest I am being insincere.

            3. They are Americans. They have citizenship. This isn’t a matter of personal opinion.

            4. The professor I mentioned was a Fulbright Scholar who won multiple awards for his contributions as a teacher and leader within the community. What has your white supremacy achieved?

          • brian_in_arizona

            There is a difference between “games” and the serious business of life.

            Salary caps are used to protect the economic interests of team owners against the interests of players. They emerged in the aftermath of “free agency” and dramatic increases in player salaries.

            Handicaps in amateur golf and other systems to make amateur competition more equal and “fun” do not exist in professional sports, where people actually compete against each other for their livelihoods using nothing but a rulebook that is the same for everyone and referees who are expected to be impartial.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Ah, the rulebook. The one we are dismantling?

          • Gary Hemminger

            I wouldn’t aggregate people. this is a step to racism.

          • FriendlyGoat

            You can’t do those statistics without aggregation.

          • Joseph Lammers

            You are correct, there are large discrepancies between various races, (and ethnic groups for that matter). Using “white privilege” to explain them does little to illuminate the problem. The most productive thing one can do to improve the outcome for one’s children are graduate from high school (at the very least), delay having children until one is married, get and keep a job, and rear the children in an intact, two parent home. If these rules are not followed than the chance of accumulating wealth, or passing it onto one’s children, becomes almost nil. The breakdown of the family in many communities explains, perhaps not all, but a great deal of this disparity. Ranting about “white privilege” is not going to do much, if anything, to change this.

          • FriendlyGoat

            There is an equal or better chance that the wealth disparity (notice I did not say racial disparity) caused the family breakdown, rather than the other way around.

          • Joseph Lammers

            More likely is that family breakdown has been caused by misguided social welfare programs originating in the sixties.

          • FriendlyGoat

            All the prospering conservatives are saying that these days. None of the non-prospering conservatives are saying it. You have people enabling your own political side who you lured in for the abortion issue, or the gun issue—–but they don’t spend their days lamenting “if only we could get rid of those food stamps, or those public schools with their free lunches, or those darned Medicare and Medicaid. They actually need, use and survive on what you call misguided. White poor Republican voters all over rural, red-state America, dammit! When do you stop using them only to belittle them behind their backs?

          • Joseph Lammers

            Frankly, FriendlyGoat, you are putting words into my mouth, and free public schools, food stamps, and Medicare and Medicaid were not the programs to which I was referring. Instead of pretending to be a mind reader perhaps you should actually study some history and try to engage with your opponents on a reasonable level. There are some problems with those programs, and they need reform, but I’m realistic enough to know that we can’t just abolish them overnight, and that many have become dependent upon them. I’m not advocating just throwing people into the street,which is what you seem to be assuming.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Weren’t the programs I mention birthed as social welfare programs and mostly in the 1960’s? What else was I to think?

          • Joseph Lammers

            You are correct however in your implication that this is not only a black problem. Much of the white working class is headed down the same road. It won’t work out any better for them.

      • TangoMan

        If we had a chart showing us the dollar value of what white people owned in America compared to what black and brown people owned in America, decade by decade from say 1700 forward to present day, adjusted for the
        relative size of the populations, we would understand what white privilege means.

        I’ll give you credit, you’re the first person I’ve ever seen who has actually tried to quantify what the term “White Privilege” actually means. Good job. Too bad you’re wrong.

        Let’s step back to a simple model of wealth creation. Wealth arises from trade. You have something I want, I have something you want, we value these items differently and when we trade we are both better off. The difference in valuation is wealth. I’m a doctor and I can fix your broken arm. You’re a farmer and you have a pig, one of many, too many for your family to eat, so the pig if not traded is worthless to you. My time and ability as a doctor is worthless to me if I can’t sell my services. If you try to fix your broken arm you’ll do a bad job because you don’t know what you’re doing. If I tried to raise a pig I’d spend more time and money on the effort than was worth it. We trade. I get the pig and you get your arm fixed. Now, how do we attach value to our trade. I’m the only doctor in these parts, you are one of many farmers. It’s not worth my time to come out to your farm in exchange for a chicken. Distant doctors will come out to treat you if you offer them a cow but won’t for a pig. After we trade we’re both better off even though it took you more effort to raise your pig than my effort of 30 minutes of treating your broken arm.

        The point here is that some folks have more valuable skills and talents than others, we see this today with the high pay of sports stars, investment bankers, physicians. Each and every one of them is paid by someone else via trade of their services for their employer’s cash. Both parties believe that they’re getting a fair deal, otherwise they wouldn’t be involved in an exchange.

        This same process of wealth creation has been taking place the entire time this country has existed. Blacks had fewer talents and skills worth trading and this has nothing to do with slavery. A slave owner always maximized the value produced by his slaves, just as employers do with their employees. No basketball team owner is going to hire Kobe Bryant to man the hot dog stand at their games, that would be a waste of talent. If a slave owner could use a slave for a high value endeavor and capture for himself that value that the slave produced, say with fixing machinery, being a good trader of his master’s farm produce, etc.

        Blacks simply have lower human capital levels, back then and today. The mean IQ of Whites is 100, the mean IQ of Blacks in America is 85. We see from genetic studies that higher White admixture in Blacks correlates to better socioeconomic outcomes:


        Recent studies have found that race discrimination was completely absent from the labor market as early as the 1970s:

        The analyses of the General Social Survey data from 1974 to 2000 replicate earlier findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth that racial disparity in earnings disappears once cognitive ability is controlled for. The results are robust across many alternative specifications, and further show that blacks receive significantly greater returns to their cognitive ability than nonblacks. The trend data show that there was no sign of racial discrimination in the United States as early as 1970s. The analyses call into question the necessity of and justification for preferential treatment of ethnic minorities.

        This puts the burden on those who push the White Privilege line to explain what is wrong with society when a White man and a Black man, both with 85 IQs earn the same wage, White men and Black men with 100 IQs both earn the same wage. Why should a Black man with an 85 IQ be paid the same as a White man with a 100 IQ? This is the crux of the complaint regarding White Privilege.

        Two things have happened in America over the centuries to get us to this point. The first is that Whites in America produced more value via their work than Blacks and the second is that the managed their wealth across the generations more wisely, thus accumulating wealth in the family while more Blacks spent their wealth in their own generation. What the White Privilege complainers are asking for is the equivalent of walking into a lawyer’s office during the reading of a will and demanding to be cut in for a share of the estate the deceased is passing on to his children. The stranger who is making this demand has no claim to that wealth. Blacks have no claim to the wealth that White society has built for itself.

        There is no such phenomenon as White Privilege, there is White Heritage, Whites built this nation, the value added by Whites, aggregated across all of society and across the centuries constitutes the bulk of the wealth of America. The wealth contributed by Blacks is what they own and it’s not much, and the reason it’s not much is almost entirely the result of Black decisions and human capital levels. They are not owed anything because nothing was taken from them.

        To extend this beyond the Black experience, Hispanics and other 3rd worlders arriving in America are also owed nothing from this White Privilege argument. They’re here stealing from the heritage of White America, Whites built America, their ancestors built their former lands, their heritage, their inheritance, is to be found in their former lands. On a personal level, I work hard at creating wealth in my life so that my children can benefit, I work and save and invest so that I can make the lives of my children better, I don’t work to make the lives of Somali refugees in America better. Those Somalis have no claim to my wealth nor my labor. If they are unequal to my children, that’s their problem, not my problem. They abandoned the inheritance of their ancestors when they left Somalia.

        • FriendlyGoat

          It’s amazing to me how many people can be found to argue, for the heck of it, that there is no white privilege. As far as I am concerned, this compulsion is most likely rooted in resistance to the demands of real Christianity. We actually are to be our brothers’ keepers. We actually are called to care about the practical welfare of those with whom we share small spaces (our communities) and large spaces (the planet). We are not wild wolves in packs or lone wolves in natural competition for only what we can defend and devour. We are educated human beings with minds, hearts, and judgment. We make choices TOGETHER, for good or for bad. If we say we love America—-BUT—-express our disinterest or disdain for large numbers of people living in it, we are liars, fools, or both.

          As for economics, we now endure six-digit and seven-digit doctors and lawyers, eight-digit entertainers (including sports), nine-digit CEOs and ten-digit pure financial traders. No one who ever raised a pig actually agreed that those “talents” justified those “values”. We simply have allowed ourselves to be played.

          • TangoMan

            It’s amazing to me how many people can be found to argue, for the heck of it, that there is no white privilege

            My children are not privileged in comparison to you when the issue is who shall inherit my estate, the estate is their heritage and not yours.

            We actually are to be our brothers’ keepers.

            Full cannot exist without empty, high cannot exist without low, male cannot exist without female, and brother cannot exist without stranger. Being my brother’s keeper, loving my neighbor, is fine, those commands though don’t extend to keeping the invader or loving my enemy.

            express our disinterest or disdain for large numbers of people living in it, we are liars, fools, or both.

            Americans are bound by kinship and culture, not a certificate of citizenship granted by the Federal Government.

            As for economics, we now endure (aka collectively FUND) six-digit and
            seven-digit doctors and lawyers, eight-digit entertainers (including
            sports), nine-digit CEOs and ten-digit pure financial traders.

            Each and every person who earns such money earns it be exchanging their service for someone else’s money and no one is compelled to enter these exchanges.

            If I write an app for your smart phone and you buy it for $5, you do so because you believe that you’re getting good value for your money, so you get the app and I get your $5. What business is it of yours if 10 million other people also buy my app for $5? How have you been harmed?

          • Liam3851

            > Being my brother’s keeper, loving my neighbor, is fine, those commands though don’t extend to keeping the invader or loving my enemy.

            Matthew 5:44:

            But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.

      • Gary Hemminger

        Oh yea, well why don’t you add asians to that list and see what percent they own compared to their percent of the population. go ahead and do that Friendly goat and see what comes out. You won’t like it because it will show that although they have been treated terribly (my god we interned them in WWII and we had a Chinese exclusion act as well) they own a larger percent of the means of production and goods and services than white people. How did they manage to do this when they were also treated terribly? And how about the folks from India, do your same math here. You won’t like the results because they will show you that you need to go back and take the remedial statistics that I guarantee you never took. You non-science types talk a good game but you know nothing about the hard sciences, statistics or mathematics.

        Somehow the Asians and the Indians succeeded when others didn’t, even though all of them were at one point or another discriminated against. Have you ever been Japan FriendlyGoat, or how about China? Go over there are you will racism the other way. Before the early 1900’s they killed all white people that landed on the Japanese islands.

        You know nothing of the world. I can see it from your writing. You have no real world experience to go on that would moderate your tongue.

        • FriendlyGoat

          Golly gee, Gary, all I did was explain to you what you begged for when you declared that you had “no freaking idea” what white privilege is in the United States. If you had put your mastery of the hard sciences on display in the first place, you would not have posed dumb questions for me to answer.

          It’s a good sign that you went back and edited out the first-draft vitriol, though.
          I must be getting through.

          • CosmotKat

            You gave him your version, but this is a tainted and biased version.

      • Gary Hemminger

        In 2010 Asians became the majority of technology workers here in Silicon Valley. Blacks and Hispanics barely make a blip on the screen. Language doesn’t seem to be the issue. What is the issue? Why have discriminated groups like Asians seem to do better than similarly discriminated groups like Blacks and Hispanics? Well one answer is maybe there is different levels of discrimination. You can go this route, but I would go another route. Asians simply dealt with the discrimination and used education, family, and jobs to get ahead. At the time complaining would do them no good. So they persevered. Then discrimination against them began to wane when they started to succeed. There is no better deodorant than success (John Madden). Nothing is going to get Blacks and Asians ahead besides their own success. You can scream white privilege, you go out and picket, you can do anything you want, but it won’t work. It has never worked. It will never work. The only thing that works is hard work and success.

    • Stephen

      Actually, it is rather simple really. You first accept this idea, let’s call it what it is, a postulate: white supremacy is baked into everything…in this country. No one has agency, not really. White supremacy like the aether once postulated to be the medium that conducted electro-magnetism, is intrinsic. It certainly is explanatory, and for that reason alone, real. Well, to those who know it’s there. But unlike the aether, this not being physics, it is not falsifiable. It simply is. You can cite as many salutary examples as you like, ones that you think present problems or contradictions, but all that demonstrates is that you are blind to the environment in which you exist and by it what moves you.

      Institutional or “structural” racism—that is, race-based exclusions that result from deep social habits such as where people live, who they know socially, what private organizations they belong to, and so on….

      Deep social habits. Not your deep social habits, but those baked into the whole: You did not choose where you live, or with whom you associate. No, not really. After all, what other choice could you have made give the ocean of white supremacy in which you are bathed. Given the four centuries of its continued existence one might fairly conclude that it is not eradicable at all; which it seems, more or less, to be where Ta-Nehisi Coates has landed.

      It is odd then, given the explanatory power of white supremacy, that predictiveness as been less than impressive. One wonders, for example, why our present circumstances weren’t predicted more widely, if at all, by our author, and those like him, in the first term, if not before, of the Obama presidency. I don’t recall it.

      However, good news: You do have a choice! You may join with the author, and those like him, who have seen the truth and can provide guidance to you, if only you will only accept it; or, you may remain with the damned. That is what he is offering you, and by extension the whole country, in the last two paragraphs.

      • Sharon

        Gℴogle offereing to people of every age 97 dollars every hour to complete easy jobs working off of a home computer . Do work Some just few hours daily & spend more time together with your family . any individual can catch this golden chance!!on Wednesday I purchased a latest volvo after I been making $12458 this-past/four weeks .it is truly my favourite-work however you may not forgive yourself if you do not have a peek at this.!iw061p:↹↹↹ http://GoogleBetterOnlineBusinessOpportunities/get/pay/97$/hr ♥♥v♥♥z♥d♥♥t♥♥♥z♥u♥♥t♥s♥♥♥g♥♥♥k♥r♥♥w♥♥♥r♥♥♥m♥♥s♥♥♥h♥m♥♥t♥u♥♥j♥l♥♥♥u♥♥b♥♥b♥x:::::::!se26z:zdxmr

      • Gary Hemminger

        So only if I accept your version can I be saved? Otherwise I am damned. Okay Billy Graham. You are some kind of servant of god and If I don’t believe your version of religion then I am damned. What a load. Go back to your flock. I don’t believe in your religion, I don’t believe in white privilege, I don’t care whether you think I am damned or not. Your sentences come from your bible, but make no sense to me. So believe in your god all you want. Tend to your flock and try to convert all you can. Unbelievable that a supposedly intelligent human being would write such a thing as “…you may remain with the damned.” What a total joke. This shows the total ineptitude and failure of this movement that needs to be put on the ash heap of history like so many other religious cults.

        • Stephen

          (Sigh) Mr. Gilman will be most disappointed to read this.

        • Vigilarus

          Whoosh! It was high-toned sarcasm. Read it again.

    • disqus_mfERPWUv3H

      Great post. My “white privilege” consisted of living in the projects as a young child in Denver. As a young girl my “white privilege” was to work asap cutting lawns and pruning bushes to help with household finances. As a teen my “white privilege” was to work in the fields on a potato harvester then in the hot shed sorting potatoes at .75 per hour to earn money for school clothes. I was the only white girl and the only one that spoke English.

  • QET

    There is no white supremacy, white privilege, or whiteness. The first was decisively defeated by the Civil Rights movement and the other two are attempts to fashion into a political organizing principle what is in fact and essentially only white presence. A handful of reprobates on the Internet and marching around a statute in Charlottesville do not white supremacy make in any meaningful social or political sense. Citing the amorphous (and for good reason) phrases “structural racism” or “structural legacy of slavery and Jim Crow” just allows people to pretend they are reacting to something other than the sheer ambient fact of white presence. For a black person, his race is everything; it is something he cannot avoid noticing and dwelling on at every moment because he is surrounded and feels suffocated by the sheer presence of the white majority. Every institution he sees and tries to partake in (colleges, e.g.) were established by white people for white people. His fingerprints on it–i.e., the co-establishment of the institutions by black people–are nowhere to be seen. Many blacks speak of the stress they endure when having to leave their own black communities and enter into places populated by whites; they feel they must speak and act in a way that denies their own self-regard as black people. The issue is put this way by the anthropologist Akhil Gupta: Who has the power to make places of spaces? Blacks share the same spaces as whites but every space is to them a white place. This is the only way to interpret, e.g., the recent phenomenon in which black 18 year-olds (18 year olds, black and white, are still just teenagers) arrive at college campuses, having demanded to be admitted to these places and having been actively solicited by these places, and immediately, in the absence of all knowledge whatever (that is why we go to college, yes?) pronounce the places bastions of white privilege and supremacy and themselves marginalized, oppressed, victims. They demand segregated spaces that they can make into black places.

    I could go on, but I I think I’ve made the point. None of this argues away the sincere stress and anxiety felt by blacks even today. But it is vitally important to understand the true basis of this stress and anxiety and not simply accept the too-convenient and ahistorical attributions to an enemy who no longer exists.

    • Jim__L

      “None of this argues away the sincere stress and anxiety felt by blacks even today.”

      Then I’ll take up that challenge.

      The challenge of having to change yourself — of having to adopt new language, new culture, the lot — is common to all immigrants to America. It’s called Assimilation, and it’s healthy, because up until about the ’50s (and there are still strains of it existing here today) it’s been assimilating to the best culture in the world, Western Civilization, consisting of Anglo-Saxon, Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian culture.

      “How convenient for you!” the ignorant will protest. “That’s your culture!”

      Well, no. Not exactly. Not at all, really.

      I don’t have a drop of Anglo-Saxon blood in me. The closest my ancestors get to that, is the bloodthirsty, axe-murdering pirates that used to enjoy killing Anglo-Saxons, and either enslaving or (according to some historians) tearing the lungs out of the survivors.

      Similarly, I have no Greco-Roman blood in me. The first my ancestors show up in history, just as the Romans have finished up their Republic, we’re busy nailing legionnaires’ heads to trees. (But only after our leadership got a proper Roman education.)

      Jewish? Hellenic? None whatsoever. I’ve visited just about every country my famil(ies) have come from, and I’ve still never been to one that touches the Mediterranean, and won’t need to, to complete the set.

      Sure, there are optimistic books about “How the Irish saved civilization”, but then there were also “No Irish Need Apply” signs in windows alongside the “Whites only” signs. And yet, we assimilated. We’re now “white”, whatever that means. (Why can’t it mean everybody? Seriously. It means Asians, at this point. Just expand it until it loses all meaning entirely. Or, shocking thought, just go full Colorblind and put this nonsense to bed for good.)

      The “Stress and Anxiety felt by [whoever] today” is something they just need to freaking ignore, and get on with their lives, as adoptive (or, like my ancestors, outright larcenous) heirs to the same Western Civilization which is the reason that our cultures were backward, and the West took over.

      Take it. It’s RIGHT THERE for you. The only people conspiring to deprive you of it are the Lefties that are trying to convince you that it has no value.

      • QET

        Maybe. But I don’t think African-Americans can be properly called immigrants nor assimilated to the same models and patterns that other immigrant populations have evidenced. Their experiences just haven’t been similar enough. In fact I think the difficulty with much of our politics lies in the fact that the situation of blacks here (I’m speaking of descendants of slaves) is entirely sui generis and does not lend itself either as a model for other “oppressed” groups nor can it be comprehended and addressed in a manner proper to the situation of other groups. In saying this I am not rank-ordering different people’s suffering, only that the situation of blacks is unique and must be thought and addressed accordingly.

        • Anthony

          Permit me the interjection as this is related to Forrest Nabors reply and essay. Blacks would be happy to drop the hyphenated African-American and redefine the term American as meaning all of its peoples. As a matter of fact, if any group is American it’s black people; they’ve been on these shores longer than many, especially those who ancestors came through Ellis Island. However, you’re onto something vis-a-vis your sui generis reference.

          For example, a core problem is that black people generally have been marked (as descendants of slaves – for the majority) a social underclass, designated by coloring initially. That means they have, again generally, lower status than other ethnic groups (generally) in America (as the hierarchy of social construct races goes). Importantly, status (regrettably) is perceived as a zero-sum game: if black people rise, so it goes, then my status falls – or something like that (somebody has to have the lowest in America – as we are inclined to think/believe).

          I’ll end by asking you to consider how Forrest Nabors’ insightful formulation aids issue understanding. Also, here’s (if you’re interested) “if everybody is a racist, then nobody is a racist” – concerning your delineation of phrase white supremacist: https:trotskychildren.blogspot.com/2018/01/if-everybody-is-racist-then-nobody-is.html

      • D4x

        Have at it! Racism is learned, not embedded in the brain circuits. Nils Gilman’s essay? here is a re-education meme labeled “white privilege”, which is teaching how to be racist. Turning America’s clock back one hundred years. Too many symbolic-analysts ran out of useful work. Am surprised they have not found a way to regulate what cows eat so their milk is ‘colored’. The progressive quest to use central government to legislate a utopia into existence became the most destructive force on earth in 2012. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d840303dad3de40d799dc66422fccdce435144ff11932ab7f5b7cdbd5aae8bf5.jpg

        Said I: “How about your relations with foreign nations?”

        “I will not affect not to know what you mean,” said he, “but
        I will tell you at once that the whole system of rival and contending nations
        which played so great a part in the ‘government’ of the world of civilisation
        has disappeared along with the inequality betwixt man and man in society.”

        “Does not that make the world duller?” said I.

        “Why?” said the old man.

        “The obliteration of national variety,” said I.

        “Nonsense,” he said, somewhat snappishly. “Cross the water
        and see. You will find plenty of variety: the landscape, the building, the
        diet, the amusements, all various. The men and women varying in looks as well
        as in habits of thought; the costume far more various than in the commercial
        period. How should it add to the variety or dispel the dulness, to coerce
        certain families or tribes, often heterogeneous and jarring with one another,
        into certain artificial and mechanical groups, and call them nations, and
        stimulate their patriotism—i.e., their foolish and envious prejudices?”

        “Well—I don’t know how,” said I. […]

        First published January 11th 1890, “News from Nowhere” re-emerged in a 1970 edition, when William Morris’ Norse-inspired heroic fantasy novels were rediscovered, the inspiration for Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. “News from Nowhere” vanished, then emerged again in 1994, then vanished. I wrote a paper on Morris, and his utopia in 2004, for 19th Century European History. Morris was a known designer, but also a Radical Socialist who wrote NfN in response to Edward Bellamy’s “Looking Backward”, and then withdrew from politics to write heroic fantasy, and illustrate and print these books by hand at his Kelmscott Press.
        There has been a proliferation of editions, and translations, of NfN, since 2007, accelerating since 2011:
        Progressives still believe this is a possible utopia.
        If only…if only they had stopped in 1972.

      • Afinikeet✓Fᵉᵈᵉʳᵃˡ ᶦˢᵗ

        Can I give that one 1,000 upvotes, please?

  • Tom Scharf

    It is dishonest to talk about race and crime and ignore racial disparities in violent crime. The author is well aware of these but decides instead to write a propaganda piece that is intentionally misleading. When black men commit violent crimes at a rate 600% to 700% higher per capita than white men it follows that there are disparities in shootings and sentencing. It is dishonest to concentrate on police shootings when black on black shootings are by far the biggest danger to a black man.

    It is dishonest to talk about the disparities in social outcomes and ignore disparities in educational achievement. Only 60% of black males graduate high school.

    I’m perfectly willing to have an “honest” discussion on race if that conversation also includes a discussion on dysfunctional black culture that expresses itself through high crime rates, low educational achievement, high rates of single parent households, no snitching, and teen pregnancies among other problems. Blacks are not going to achieve their goals by ignoring personal agency. The attempts to build a social construct where poor life decision making is to be ignored is foolish as it limits the effectiveness of solutions.

    Changing social norms to silence critics of black culture doesn’t improve the graduation rates, doesn’t lower high crime rates, and doesn’t make bad neighborhoods any better. It just buries the root problems. If the new solution is to be grand standing with a heavy dose of white guilt don’t be surprised if things look the same or worse 20 years from now.

    If an author demands introspection from his readers, he should also demand introspection from himself.

  • Anthony

    With the collapse of racial liberalism means is that Americans of every ‘race’ (single quote marks added) can no longer defer the choice between two visions of the country’s racial future.” (Nils Gilman)

    Nils Gilman infers a national reckoning hasten by both Trump and Obama election indicators. Well on one hand, what author identifies as the racial liberal consensus made manifest in Obama’s 2008 presidential election may also be identified as moribund centralism last grasp. That is, perhaps Obama’s narrative and personal skills (oratory) masked a dying consensus on all matters of ‘race’ (neither acceptable by left nor right – whatever terms currently mean). “Obama was at once the promise of the immigrant nation (open even to the son of Kenyan immigrant), the black fulfillment of Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘dream’ (consensus liberalism perhaps), and the success of the hardworking white middle class – represented by his single mother and her parents. Obama, in other words, was the living proof of American exceptionalism, an embodiment of self-advancement through meritocracy (the liberal consensus affirmed). Except that in reality, Obama’s narrative neither affirmed nor completely revealed the suspect nature of the American Creedal story (exceptionalism) made useful since Gunnar Myrdal terrific work. So on one hand, the elections of Obama and Trump give a most recent snapshot of a historically delayed/contested American social reality: we always still avoid directly confronting the unsolved American Nationality question.

  • StudentZ

    Thomas Chatterton Williams wrote an interesting NY Times op-ed on Ta-Nehisi Coates not too long ago:

  • Stephen

    In virtually every way, it is now clear that Barack Obama’s campaign for the presidency in 2008 was the apotheosis of this model of racial liberalism.

    At last, an intellectual basis for condemning whites who voted for Barack Obama. (Quite necessary if we are to condemn those who flipped from voting for Obama to then voting for Trump.) We already knew why those who didn’t were to be condemned. Until now, we didn’t know why or how to condemn those who did: Racial Liberalism. Oh yes, most condemnable.

  • Stephen

    Ta-Nehisi Coates, who over the past decade has emerged (to his own surprise and perhaps discomfort) as America’s most vital public intellectual.

    To some, but by no means to all…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jeiPKh7jEA

  • TangoMan

    Don’t exclude those who are defined by their passion for excluding others?

    Simple question for Nils, who invited these others? No one actually ran on the platform of erasing White America, no one actually voted to make Whites a minority in the land bequeathed to them by their ancestors. Where is the consent of the governed to this project of making American Whites a minority in their land?

    Exlcluding those who are invading your land is not something which is evil or wrong or impolite.

    • Tom

      The project that doesn’t exist except in the fevered minds of racialist fantasists like yourself and your left-wing counterparts?

      • TangoMan

        You’re delusional.

        • Tom

          Hey, I’m not the one running around claiming that there’s a vast left-wing conspiracy to make white people a minority.

          • TangoMan

            Washington Post: Trump immigration plan could keep whites in U.S. majority for up to five more years

          • Tom

            Okay, and? That’s evidence of an effect, not a cause.

          • CosmotKat

            The cause of the DNC is to make the United States a white minority.

          • Tom

            And your evidence is?

          • CosmotKat

            Here’s a start and it goes on from there:

            “Diversity” is Democrat Party code for deliberate discrimination:

            Employees within the Democratic National Committee are looking for new employees in the Technology Department.
            However, the DNC is apparently not interested in your resume if you happen to be a white male.

            In an email issued to DNC insiders on Monday, Data Services manager Madeleine Leader announced that the Technology Department is looking to fill several positions and asked interested parties to forward the openings to their colleagues.

            She included the following caveat:
            I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they’re already in the majority. . .[snip]

            Identity Politics is the ideology of the liberal/progressive/left and
            the Democratic Party. Identity Politics teaches hatred of white people, all white people. An article last November in the student newspaper at Texas State University declared that white DNA is an abomination.

            I would also submit as evidence the strong support by Democrats/Progressives for the Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit group who pretends to be an arbiter of hate speech, but is nothing more than a hate group itself dedicated to smearing anyone they disagree with and an anti-white hate group.

          • Tom

            Right. In other words, you don’t have any. Danke.

          • CosmotKat

            Right in front of your face, Tom. Are you really that dumb or just naive?

          • Tom

            Just not as determined to believe that my opponents are my enemies in order to justify my own choices.

          • CosmotKat

            The exceedingly self-righteous generally like to portray themselves in such a manner.

          • CosmotKat

            The DNC who embrace LaRaza, Nation of Islam, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, anti-white congressional black caucus and the SPLC.

          • CosmotKat

            That’s because you are intellectually dishonest. We all know and have read so many Democrat by-lines gleefully extolling the coming white minority.

          • Tom

            Really? Give me some mainstream Democrats–not some weird fringer–saying they want whites to be a minority.
            I’ll wait sitting down.

          • CosmotKat

            “White DNC chair candidate: My job will be to ‘shut other white people down’
            -Sally Boynton Brown, the chairwoman of the Idaho Democratic Party and candidate for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee”


            *Van Jones: “The environmental justice community that said, ‘Hey, wait a minute, you know, you’re regulating, but you’re not regulating equally.’ And the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities, because they don’t have a racial justice frame.”

            Van Jones, a Barack Obama confidante and choice for a cabinet position, but hastily dropped for his overt ant-white views, but not within the progressive coalitions. [snip]

            More Van Jones:

            “If you are white, you are blight.

            Let me tell you something; if you are a white Democrat, I hope you lose your job. I hope it is “redistributed” to a person of color, and your children (who, being part of the oppressive white race deserve to starve) go hungry.”

            The party agenda was set in place by Barack Obama. To wit:

            Barack Hussein Obama, who spent 23 years in a Marxist “black liberation” church that preached anti-white racist hatred and anti-Americanism.

      • CosmotKat

        Project much?

        • Tom


  • TangoMan

    While racial animus persisted beneath the surface of U.S. civil society,

    If racial animus persists, then why are liberals so intent on exacerbating the animus by pushing more racial diversity onto society? How has it helped Black America to take the nation’s 2nd largest racial group and push them to the back of the bus, making them the 3rd largest, now with less political and social clout than newly arrived Mestizos who outnumber Blacks in America. Are Blacks supposed to welcome this new turn of events?

  • TangoMan

    with a former Republican State Representative from Louisiana infamous for refusing to accept the civic and political equality of

    Why Republican and not Democrat?

    Duke first ran for the Louisiana Senate as a Democrat from a Baton Rouge district in 1975. During his campaign, he was allowed to speak on the college campuses of Vanderbilt University, Indiana University, the University of Southern California, Stanford University, and Tulane University.[14] He received 11,079 votes, one-third of those cast.[15] In October 1979, he ran as a Democrat for the 10th District Senate seat and finished second in a three-candidate race with 9,897 votes (26 percent)

    In 1988, Duke ran initially in the Democratic presidential primaries. His campaign failed to make much of an impact, with the one notable exception—winning the little-known New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary.

  • TangoMan

    Likewise, rumors proliferated across right-wing media to the effect that Obama, in addition to being the follower of a radical Christian
    minister, was also a secret Muslim.

    Obama’s father was a Muslim, his entire family on his father’s side is Muslim, Obama’s step-father was Muslim, his half-sister, raised in the same household as his, is Muslim, Obama attended a Muslim school in Indonesia. How in this sea of Muslims did one boy become a Christian?

    • Liam3851

      His mother

      • CosmotKat

        She was an aetheist. Try again.

  • TangoMan

    For one side the goal is to complete the march through the institutions in order to end the four-centuries-long legacy of white supremacy.

    It is quite irritating to see an author display such ignorance. Words have meaning. Quit tossing around words you don’t understand. Define White Supremacy.

  • Tom

    Summary: a promising essay topic quickly becomes an excuse for partisan hackery.
    Let’s take the two most egregious examples: Obama as “graciousness and meritocracy personified.” As to “graciousness,” the author seems to have forgotten the “bitter clingers” speech, as well as the response when asked how he would work with Republicans after his inauguration–“We won.”

    Second, as to Trump, while I would argue that he summoned forth the decaying corpse of white identity politics, the idea that his campaign was “overtly racist” is…more than a little fishy, particularly from an essay that claims Ta-Nehisi Coates, of all people, as America’s most vital public intellectual. If that last is true, we’re in a heap of trouble.

    • WigWag

      “As to “graciousness,” the author seems to have forgotten the “bitter clingers” speech, as well as the response when asked how he would work with Republicans after his inauguration–We won.”

      And then there was the picture, suppressed for years, of Obama’s being gracious to the Jew-hating Louis Farrakhan.


      Nils Gilman is a dim bulb. How could he not be? After all, he works at a think tank. Has he ever put in an honest day’s work in his life?

      • johngbarker

        What does the Jewish experience over the centuries tell us about overcoming prejudice and racism?

  • Joe Eagar

    This is a very Southern-centric piece. Contrary to what Southerners wish to believe, the United States was neither uniformly racist (a majority of Americas opposed Southern poll taxes in, I think it was the 1940s), nor ideologically white supremacist.

    Here’s a perfect example:

    “While a politics of ethno-racial identity have roared into the mainstream of both the Democratic and Republican parties, this parallelism by no means entails moral equivalence. For one side the goal is to complete the march through the institutions in order to end the four-centuries-long legacy of white supremacy. For the other it is about a last-ditch defense of the longstanding privileges associated with that history. ”

    Of course they’re morally equivalent. Most white identity politics is not supremacist but reactionary. If you tell two hundred million people that they’re evil and immoral and should be persecuted by the government, and oh by the way we, the nonwhites, will soon have the votes to pull this off, don’t be surprised if you get a backlash. Mercifully it’s not really true that “nonwhites” is a corporate identity hell-bent on killing white people. That’s a feature of the privileged children of upper-middle and wealthy families. In truth, many of the people protesting police brutality have nearly as strong (if hidden) feelings of dislike for the poor black people who are being victimized as the police in those cities do.

    Americans are slowly starting to realize that when two groups hate each other and both have some political power, both groups can suffer persecution in the public square. Unfortunately we still insist that only one of the two groups has a right to object to this; whichever group is more “moral” is entitled to public defense of its rights, to the complete exclusion of the other. I’ve heard that this is how the Austro-Hungarian Empire fell apart.

  • Joe Eagar

    This is more of the “equality feels like oppression” crap. You’ve set your sights too low. Equality isn’t lobbying the government to punish strangers you’ve never met then gaslighting them when they object. Low-status white people feel oppressed because they are. It’s entirely possible that low-status whites and low-status blacks are both oppressed, after all, they both have that “low-status” prefix, don’t they?

    But Americans can’t fathom a world where disadvantaged people are, you know, disadvantaged. They have to be divided into groups: poor whites can’t possibly suffer persecution in rural areas if poor blacks are mistreated in inner cities! As if one implies the other.

  • Joe Eagar

    Newsflash: not all white people are high-income high-IQ achievers ensconced in the ethnic class systems of New York City or San Francisco. If you idiot liberals hate ethnic class systems so much, why do you still have them in your own cities? Why do you drive out all the white people who aren’t “superior”? How many kids grow up in your cities honestly thinking that white people are superior because that’s the illusion you’ve created by excluding any white person who isn’t?

  • Anthony

    “For just as in war the impediment of a ditch, though ever so small, may break a regiment, so every cause of difference, however slight, makes a breach in a city.” (Aristotle – Politics: Concept of State and Citizen)

  • Jeff Jones

    The author conveniently ignores Obama and Holder’s flat refusal to punish the Black panthers for blatant voter intimidation in 2008. It defies logic to claim that they would not have brought a rain of misery down on any white person doing the same. And the media’s and Democrats’ insistence on calling anyone who opposed an Obama policy a racist took a sledgehammer to race relations as well.

    Yeah, it is conservatives’ fault that racial liberalism has been a failure. Sure, there are far right clowns who still refuse to get onboard with equality, but they’re few and far between. Most conservatives are nothing like them, which is why the left pushes “white privilege,” which is a mythical advantage invented by liberals to explain away the Democrats’ destruction of the black family.

  • allen_143

    This article attributes all of the the opposition to Obama and his administration as racism; that it is systemic, generational, and collectively unconscious. The article even states that Obama’s election and actions as president did very little to affect the lives of most African-Americans with regards to this racism. … I ask the author, could this opposition actually be a function of his policies? If his policies did nothing to advance African-American and Anglo-American relations on a practical, and secondly on a subconscious, level, what reason is there to say that he was the embodiment of a post-racial society. Secondly, his policies were decidedly progressive and globalist. They hurt EVERYBODY in the United States, and not just Anglo-American white males. The rejection of these policies is exhibited in the election of his successor, Donald Trump, the Anti-Obama. So, to say that it was all just racism I think is simplistic, and misses the mark substantially. You need to re-evaluate your understanding of what America actually believes. Maybe the colorblindness of the post-racial 60’s actually exist. Maybe, socialism runs counter to human nature as survivalist mammal; that Darwin was right? Or do you prefer to show your own racism in continuing the myth that humanity can’t see past skin color in America?

  • David Whitney

    I tried to get through all of this without snorting or rolling my eyes. I got as far as “Ta-Nehisi Coates… has emerged … as America’s most vital public intellectual.”
    Nils, what you are describing is a phase. We started with the Slavery Phase that ended with the Civil War. The short-lived Reconstruction Phase yielded to the Reconstruction Backlash Phase, which shamefully lasted until the Reconstruction Lite Phase. Then we entered the Racial Liberalism Phase your article focuses on. So, what shall we call this new phase? How about the Take off the Blinders Phase?

  • CapitalistRoader

    How did the presence of a black man in the presidency make any difference when unarmed black men were being shot across the country at a higher rate than anyone else?

    Similarly, how did the presence of a black man in the presidency make any difference when black men were committing murder across the country at over five times the rate of white men? In reality, black crime increased on Obama’s watch. Why do you think that is, Nils?

  • brian_in_arizona

    “What the collapse of racial liberalism means is that Americans of every race no longer can defer the choice between those two visions of the country’s racial future.” Meaning that whites must accept the reality of their “white supremacy” and all the privileges it affords, and “do something” about it. Judging a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin simply will not work, in the author’s view, because white Americans only see the color of skin.

    Nonsense. Black separatists have believed in the fundamental evil of whites for some time now, but that viewpoint never became popular with liberals of any color. The recent invention (in academe) of structural “white supremacy” is designed to make “white evil” respectable. White supremacy was invented to explain the inability of black Americans to achieve full parity with white America since legal segregation was swept away 50 years ago….and end reasoned debate about other possible causes. Once the cause of black underachievement is irremediable racism, further discussion is impossible with irremediable racists. All that remains is for the irremediable to become remediable and surrender without further ado.

    But I don’t know what surrender of white supremacy would look like. Does anyone?

    Affirmative action on steroids? SCOTUS has grudgingly approved “affirmative action” only so long as it is “time limited”, since by its very nature affirmative action is in conflict with the equal protection clauses of the Constitution. SCOTUS wisely did not say how long “time limited” will be, but clearly they stated that it cannot become a permanent feature of our society.

    Racial quotas? If affirmative action is barely tolerated by both the courts and the public, will out and out racial quotas be more acceptable?

    Land/housing/jobs “reform”? Whites moving from affluent suburbs into black ghettos and giving their vacant houses to the racially needy, and enrolling Tiffany and Jackson into chaotic black urban schools? White parents “giving” their hard-earned degrees and jobs to deserving blacks?

    Reparations? A several $trillion wealth transfer from whites (however defined) to blacks (however defined) for cultural injustice? Will recent white, brown, or Asian immigrants who have succeeded in America have to pay for this as well? Will whites who fought as Abolitionists in the Civil War (as did my maternal ancestors) get some partial relief? Will whites who immigrated after the Civil War (as did my paternal ancestors) be charged the same rate as the descendants of slave-owners or soldiers of the Confederacy?

    I mean, once white America says “mea culpa”, what next? Or is this just an intellectual exercise in comparative racial morality?

  • Daniel Jelski

    Sorry. I think this is wrong. Most white Americans don’t care about race one way or another. We go through our lives completely oblivious to the whole issue. So to call us “racist” or “white supremacist” is to give us too much credit. We don’t care enough to warrant either of those epithets.

    Trump is in that category. He’s no more racist than the average 70 year old white man.

    Second, there really is no such thing as “white” people–we’re from too many different cultural backgrounds. E.g., Yankees are the sworn enemies of the Scots-Irish, and neither of them have much good to say about Jews or Catholics. Black people are inconsequential–not a threat to anybody’s way of life. Outside the deep South nobody worries about them.

    Indifference may be a sin, but it’s not the same sin as racism or white supremacy.

  • Reformedviking

    Intreresting article. a bit too focused on the fringes of left and right. The failure of the left-wing to focus on equality of opportunity as opposed to Identity Politics is sad – the “right wing racists” that are completely fringe at the moment, are all too happy to step into and debate the Left on their terms, created by the left wing’s identity politic’s hypocrisy…it’s a debate the “Right wing racists” want with these useful idiots.

    How about focusing on the poor schools in urban centers. How about paying teachers better, and giving the parent’s choice were to send their children for a start. People from the hills of West Virginia are not going to move into Compton or vise versa. People are tribal – sad but true. How about focusing on practical solutions as a way to chip away at perceived and real challenges. Equality of opportunity.

    Obama was a reaction to Bush… was that bad? I would say no.
    Trump was a reaction to Obama (and even more to Hillary), was that bad? I would say no.
    America course corrects every 8 years at a minimum – that’s the beauty.
    Some time in the future – America will course correct again…it’s called the democratic process and it’s OK.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2018 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.