Two Attitudes to Race Relations

Regular visitor Watcher left the following comment under my post on the importance of individuals:

There is an old (American, I believe) saying that reputedly applied to the difference between the South and the North as regards race. The Southern view was ‘hate the race, love the individual’ while the North was the opposite. wherein the race was loved but individuals despised.

I have an American friend in New York who grew up in South Carolina. I was with him outside his house in Harlem when I was called a “European n*gger” by a black guy riding past on a bike. Later on we had a discussion about race in America and he said much the same thing as Watcher does above.

Down in South Carolina people certainly held racist attitudes, and you could hear these expressed verbally in people’s homes. They could also be seen in people’s behaviour, e.g. interracial dating was frowned upon and blacks weren’t invited into white homes for dinner. But these attitudes rarely translated into words or actions against the coloured individuals with whom the white population would interact on a personal basis. A white storekeeper would happily serve a black customer and be as polite as he would towards anyone else, they would say “good morning” to one another, eat alongside each other in restaurants, and chat to each other at sports events. The prejudice remained of course, but maintain good relations and keeping the peace was seen as more important than expressing them to individuals.

My friend said New York was altogether different, and that incident with me was the first time he’d heard racial abuse being shouted in the streets in America. The Deep South is held up to be a hotbed of racism and prejudice, but it is the cities in the supposedly enlightened coastal regions where individuals throw manners and etiquette in the bin and hurl abuse and threaten one another. This isn’t only confined to race either, far from it. Look at the abuse being poured on Trump supporters and others like Milo and Ben Shapiro for daring to hold different opinions. And then there’s this, of course. If it comes to a choice between privately held prejudices in a polite society and different, approved prejudices in a society where abusing people in public is accepted and normal, I know which one I’d prefer.

Staying on much the same subject, The ZMan has put up a good post:

There is not point at which one clearly passes from the state of sin to the state of virtue. Instead, virtue is the running from sin, which is always running after you like a monster in a horror movie. It’s why the Left today obsesses with leaning forward and looking ahead to the future. Virtue is an active state, the act of running from the past, like a frightened animal trying to outrun the slowest of the herd.

We’re seeing this with anti-racism. The recent Martin Luther King holiday provided an opportunity for the members of the One True Faith to display their piety. When the holiday was created a generation ago, it was sufficient to say some nice things about the man and leave it at that. Most people simply ignored it entirely. Today, you have to come close to demanding the death of all white men or you risk being called a racist by the Cult. The day is filled with one anti-racist after another signalling their virtue.

This is where anti-racism is right now. You cannot be anti-racist enough. There is no limit so anyone can come along and be more anti-racist than the current most anti-racist guy. If one is not constantly racing to be even more pure, they risk being accused of heresy, which in the modern age means being a racist. It is why Trump is called a racist. It’s not just a political taunt. The lunatics of the anti-racism movement see anyone not racing toward virtue as an enemy of their cause.

Go read the whole thing.

Share

7 thoughts on “Two Attitudes to Race Relations

  1. It is, I think, reasonable to say that this matter does not cover race relations alone. In my small (former mining) northern village the man who cuts my hair is gay. This is of no consequence to how good he is as a barber, and nor does it stop me chatting to him on a range of subjects. You might even say the role of the barber is to encourage people to chat freely. When his pet cat was run over recently I really felt his grief and had all on not to weep with him. Poor man.

    My barber however is a lonely man, and tells me his attempts to find a partner have been thwarted by liars and delusionists. I feel sorry for him because all human beings deserve as much happiness as they may find and I wish him all the best. But as we generally avoid talking politics while my thinning grey hair is further reduced, I am glad we do not discuss issues like gay marriage. While I may sincerely believe this man should be happy in whatever way he can be, I am not a fan of the whole gay wedding and gay lifestyle thing that seems to occupy much of the waking thoughts of many living many miles to the south of my village.

    But then I suppose I am in the Brit version of the US North/South line I mentioned before. I take the ‘southern’ view as it were wherein the individual is fine, but the collective ‘love’ and fawning of a group ideal less so. I have relatives who live in London and whenever i meet them I am astonished at how much adoration they profess for whole groups and ideals, but how they carefully step aside from real people. But, each to their own. If it makes them happy ‘down sowf’ to be what they are, so be it. However it doesn’t have to be me.

  2. There was an incident yesterday when I was coming out of a supermarket and two black guys with basketball team logos on their jackets also walked out. I turned and they were expecting trouble.

    ‘You guys always give me an inferiority complex with my height and yours.’

    ‘Don’t you go worrying about that, Bro,’ they smiled, ‘you keep on the way you are.’

    What you said about issues with them as a group but not one-on-one.

  3. “While I may sincerely believe this man should be happy in whatever way he can be, I am not a fan of the whole gay wedding and gay lifestyle thing that seems to occupy much of the waking thoughts of many living many miles to the south of my village.”

    Some say there is a direct relationship between increased sexual proximity and the decline of civilization. Joseph Urwin demonstrated in his book Sex and Culture that societies that practiced heterosexual monogamy were far more successful than those that didn’t.

    Our social engineers are well aware of this fact.

    “If the British anthropologist J. D. Unwin is correct in his assessment of society, this present generation in the Western world may be the last one. In his book, Sex and Culture, professor Unwin studied eighty ‘uncivilized’ cultures and compared his results with sixteen ‘civilized’ cultures extending over the last 4,000 years. He found that when strict heterosexual monogamy was practiced, the society attained its greatest cultural energy, especially in the arts, sciences and technology. But as people rebelled against the prohibitions placed upon them and demanded more sexual opportunities, there was a consequent loss of their creative energy, which resulted in the decline and eventual destruction of the civilization. Remarkably, he did not find any exception to this trend.”

    http://factn.org/societal-success-and-sexual-restraint-j-d-unwin/

  4. If the British anthropologist J. D. Unwin is correct in his assessment of society

    Not brother of the late Professor Stanley Unwin?

  5. This explanation of the to different approaches to race relations is quite brilliant. I have already found myself using it in general conversation.

  6. Pingback: Who will be our Sobieski? – Orphans of Liberty

Comments are closed.