White Guilt and the Western Past (Why is America so delicate with the enemy?)

Wall Street Journal ^ | May 2, 2006 | SHELBY STEELE

[Frank T]

"My advice?..."

I should have offered a couple of ideas.

Given that the Progressive/Left establishment is as white as a Klan rally and behave as they are society's betters, to politically convert them is pointless. Rather, it is best for them to be held to account for their policies that get enacted by governments.

It's the squishy middle that needs to be brought around. The simplest way to accomplish that is to let the consequences of the Progressive agenda play out. Preferably abroad. And that means keeping our hands clean, by not being involved, and not being a plausible scapegoat.

Bold action in this direction could be done by using the presidential executive order to evict the U.N. from US soil. This kind of thing cannot be accomplished through legislation, as the backlash would probably be too much to round up the votes needed; RINOs would subvert it if they had the chance.

Another step would be to disband NATO. With the Soviet threat gone, there is no reason to protect Europeans from themselves any longer. If this means Islamic nations take liberties, so be it. The bad consequences of the Progressive ideology and it's pacifism should be allowed to play out. What is going on in the M.E. right now is Arabic imperialism. Free people *should* be afraid. What better example than when it comes knocking on your door and tells you to start rearranging your funiture, the new master is here. If the EUros emphathize with the poor "brown" Arabs, they should be acquainted with reality, and by extention, so should American leftists.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

See my tag line.

While the American liberal is the most vocal of the multiculturalists, they are merely the courier. And, as Mr. Steele points out, rush headlong into opinion based upon "feelings" of guilt, that is, with no rational, intellectual argument to back them up.

They are the couriers of a plan that was devised and implemented by Stalin during FDR's administration. FDR had many Soviet plants who knew there would never be a workers' revolution in America, that America must be turned Socialist by letting herself weaken and crumble from within. Part of the plan was to topple America's cultural and traditional past, its Judeo-Christian ethics and societal structure. When this had been toppled through moral relativism, it would be far easier for the workers/masses to rise up and turn America into a Socialist nation.

While the immediate effect of these Soviet plants in FDR's administration is debatable, there lasting effect was in the influence they had in passing on their goal to their replacements in government and especially in spreading this ideology to academe, where Marxism is alive and well.

[mewzilla]

The last two paragraphs of the piece say it all.

Amen.

[kimosabe31]

Great picture navy. I don't want on her s#!t list.

[kimosabe31]

No doubt this explains why our guys aren't using napalm and flame throwers.

[Mr. Jeeves]

I do not believe that we see ourselves as "fighting for our very survival." We say the platitudes, but we really don't think that the Islamofacists will really change our way of life like Hitler would have.

We see ourselves as disciplining adolescents, not fighting adults for our lives.

[rhema]

BTTT

[kimosabe31]

After that communism stopped growing...

Uh...don't think so. What about the democrat party and RINO wing of the repub party where commies have flourished to a degree that it is now indistinguishable from cpusa.

[angcat]

I like your plan!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Old Professer]

Steele is an urban cowbow astride a racing zebra with a bottle of bleach in one hand and a can of black paint in the other.

[x]

Shelby Steele wrote a book about White guilt, so he sees it everywhere. I don't think there's anything racial about what he describes. It's the superpower syndrome -- or Vietnam syndrome.

If you feel that your back's against the wall and your survival's at stake, you put all you have into saving your life. If you're a superpower, you start thinking that you can win all conflicts with one hand tied behind your back.

You don't make the sacrifices you would if you were a less powerful country. Also, for a superpower with many weapons of mass destruction, there's a certain guilt attached to being the Goliath and using the most powerful weapons in your arsenal.

There's also some guilt attached to being a major part of a dominant global culture, but it's not racial -- especially since that global culture isn't "White", but international and intercontinental.

[GSlob]

No guilt trips unless they are paying for the round trip first class tickets.

[Earthdweller]

This is silly..it's not guilt, it's leaving a little room for the power of persuasion.

That separates us from the ideology of the Romans.

[Mr. Mojo]

Whether the problem is race relations, education, immigration or war, white guilt imposes so much minimalism and restraint that our worst problems tend to linger and deepen. Our leaders work within a double bind. If they do what is truly necessary to solve a problem--win a war, fix immigration--they lose legitimacy. To maintain their legitimacy, they practice the minimalism that makes problems linger

Sums up the article nicely.

[Publius6961]

In Iraq we want to hold the territory not destroy the enemy. Plus we are losing so few soldiers. I know 2 thousand sounds like alot but its small. The insurgency in Iraq can't take territory, it can only sabotage. The only way to beat that is to use tactics we won't use, or just accept the causalities.

This summarizes the dilemma perfectly. But not the evolution of public attitude.
In Iraq, we should not have attempted to "hold" territoy; We should have destroyed the place and made it impossible for them to both rebuild it and cause the U.S. further mischief. And simultaneously sent a signal to whomever wanted to be next to step up to the plate.
There is no question in my mind that if we had done so, Iran would not be posturing so comically today.

I know, that is the WWII template, but in its simplicity it would have done the job at greatly fewer casualties for us.

The main point here is that during WWII, for the last time the goal was not to "protect" the world's opinion of us, or to "win hearts and minds; it was merely to win. At the least number of casualties to ourselves.

The current "politically correct" war is an abomination and an obscenity: trading the lives of our countrymen for world 'brownie' points.
I would not fight in such a war, nor allow my children to. Fight to win, or surrender.

[Major_Risktaker]

And where is the will to truly regulate the southern border when those who ask for this are slimed as bigots?

White guilt has been created and promoted by the media to keep the majority of whites slimed as bigot so white greed can flourish for those few who benefit from low wages and human trafficking.

Mexican President Vicente Fox has described a US proposal to build a fence along their 3,200km (2,000 miles) border as "shameful".

[Publius6961]

What you said...
If anyone out there thinks, if that had happened, that Ahmedinajad the midget would now be threatening anyone?

[schu]

Agree. The end of the Vietnam war was the lowest point in our history, we completed abrogated our moral responsibility to those people and the world. Pol Pot did his thing, and to this day Vietnam is one of the poorest countries on earth.

Nice going Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry. Someday they will be held accountable.

schu

[Wallace T.]

One major difference between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War is the absence of a military draft. It was the combination of a prolonged "no win" war and the threat of conscription that generated the massive antiwar protests which caused Johnson not to seek re-election. Since the draft was eliminated in 1972, the major thorn that led to the massive protests was removed. In this war, even though we are playing under Marquis of Queensbury rules, it seems somewhat remote to most Americans, unless they have a relative in military service. To most, it is merely an item of interest in the news, like the Zulu War or the Boer War were for Victorian era Britons.

"No draft" is as much a "third rail" in American politics as Social Security is, barring a World War II style global conflict.

[Alia]

Thanks for posting this. Don't know how I missed it in searching for it! :)