Extracting the Poison From White Racism: How to defuse white nationalism's growing appeal

Carol M. Swain, a professor of both political science and law at Vanderbilt University, has studied racial attitudes for more than a decade. Her latest book, "The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration" (Cambridge University Press, 2002), argues that white nationalism is on the rise. To defuse its appeal, she counsels African-Americans to stop supporting affirmative action and reparations. Felicia R. Lee spoke with her.

You argue that an energized white separatist movement exists, despite polls that show more racial tolerance and an increasingly diverse popular culture. Why?

A lot of white people feel that diversity is being forced on them and it comes at their expense.

For example, in one of my focus groups with whites from the New York area — men and women of different ages — they were very angry. One person said employers will not take white males when they have to take blacks, Hispanics and Chinese; that there were quotas; that blacks could go to schools like Yale before whites; that blacks were lazy.

Blacks saw quotas as a ceiling and were angry about affirmative action, too. They said affirmative action was the receptionist out front and the guy who fixes the copy machine.

Racial extremists have a long history in this country. Why sound alarm bells now?

A constellation of forces are coming together at this point in time that we've never had before. There is the projection that non-Hispanic whites will be the minority around the year 2050. There's economic uncertainty, with a recession and globalization and loss of jobs. An immigration policy that means that some immigrants do compete with Americans for jobs. Racial preferences, a policy never accepted by the majority of whites. Continued white fear of black crime. And the ability of the Internet to reach people who want information about white nationalism.

Historically, rapid demographic changes and economic uncertainty put people on a collision course and lead to social ills.

Senator Trent Lott is under fire for saying that the United States would be better off if Strom Thurmond had won the presidency on the segregationist platform in 1948. Should he resign?

I think Trent Lott should lead the national debate on race. If we're going to have a serious discussion, we need people to say what's on their minds. I don't think he should step down. If we attack these people when they put their feet in their mouths, we can never get to the root of the problem.

Is the specter of whites as a minority the biggest race card the racists play?

Yes. They say that your children and grandchildren will be submerged in these teeming masses of people that don't share your values, don't share your culture. It's very dangerous that white nationalists are the only ones talking in open forums about what it might mean for white people being a minority in America.

You yourself overcame the disadvantages of being black, poor, a high-school dropout. And now you advocate restrictions on immigration and the end of race-based affirmative action as big steps toward creating a better racial climate.

We can neutralize white nationalists by taking away two of their best issues. One is affirmative action as racial preferences and another is liberal immigration policies. One of the concerns that many people have about immigration is that new immigrants, who don't have a shared history of discrimination in the same way as African-Americans, can be eligible for racial preferences; it works against the interests of African-Americans and other people who have a history in this country. Some of them are illegal immigrants, who tend to depress the wages of native workers.

We need to move toward race-neutral affirmative-action policies and guarantee people a working wage. I believe that affirmative action never reached down to the people who were most disadvantaged.

The house is on fire for African-Americans, but the black leadership is more focused on the easier, symbolic issues. Some of those issues that the black leaders champion push some white people into the neo-conservative movement as a reaction. Like the focus on slave reparations at this time in history — the timing could not be worse. If whites don't support affirmative action, why would they support reparations? I think it comes at an enormous cost of resentments being stirred.

Black leadership needs to focus still on issues like black crime. Even though crime has dropped nationwide, it's still a pattern that separates African-Americans from other groups. There are cultural things that need to be addressed, like the high rate of illegitimacy. Close to 70 percent of black children are born illegitimate. AIDS is the leading cause of death of African-Americans under the age of 55, and that is not really being discussed by the leading black spokespeople.

Liberals, you say, are not any better in turning back white nationalists because they have no new ideas about race, immigration, poverty.

I think the left is very much focused on maintaining and defending the status quo of things put into place 30 years ago. They're not strategic at all.

How in the world is the average white person, who maybe doesn't like affirmative action, turned into a white nationalist?

To reach the mainstream white population, the group they'd like to politicize, white nationalists have very skillfully adopted the language of multiculturalism and the language of civil rights. The language of multiculturalism says it's O.K. for groups to organize for self-determination and self-pride. The white nationalists say if it's O.K. for blacks and Hispanics, then why not whites? And they say that white Americans are the group that is most discriminated against in America and that there's no one protecting their interests. They are talking about racial preferences, immigration, job loss. The K.K.K. is a dying organization, not because its views and hatred are not out there, but because people have other avenues, and white intellectuals, people who are well educated, are not going to be in any of those organizations.

That all sounds real fine, however several years ago the people of California voted for and passed proposition 187, by a huge majority. Californian's voted and said they had enough of the illegal aliens that the federal government has allowed into our state. 187 would have put an immediate stop to any tax support of illegal aliens. Well, the government stepped in and burned our ballots and declared our election illegal, after we won! It was a big victory. A free election.

I haven't seen Texas do this. And since 1 in every 20 Texans is now an illegal alien, when do you think Texas may step up to the plate and hold their own election to stop this lunacy? And if they do, what do you think would happen in the state George Bush is from? I think the results would be predictable, as even Bush Senior came came out, and spoke out against our election here in California. I remember it clearly and can even find a quote if you like.

These are the brutal hard facts.

Thanks, it's always heartening when the observations of others in a position to know accord with one's own. My experiences include having been involved in SSOC (Southern Students Organizing Committee -- the white counterpart of SNCC) in the mid-1960s and on University of California academic senate committees dealing with affirmative action in the early '70s (on the losing side -- we were the advocates of an AA program that would have supported and subsidized minority kids at the junior/community colleges until they met the then colorblind UC entrance requirements, so that there would be no question of the value of a UC degree or that the minority students weren't held to the same standards) and then the past 30-odd years in the workforce. Your observations based on experience in HR sound more systematic than mine, but my anecdotal evidence is thoroughly congruent.

In my view, all employers should concentrate on the job qualifications, performance, on the job behavior and attitude of employees, and matters of race, sex, gender orientation should be irrelevant unless manifested in inappropriate behavior in the office.

"I think assimilation of American values, both by immigrants but also by our children is the strength of our nation. Yup, mostly white, Judeo Christian stuff, but not defined that way, universal values, and they’d work for a hard working black Muslim refugee from Sudan just fine if he accepts them.

Exactly. And that assimilation has little to do with some sort of a homogenous nation, or with people discarding their ethnic/cultural traditions and embracing the prevailing culture, but rather, as you said, embracing American/western values of equality, justice, and tolerance of diverse opinions.

And I agree with you that there's not room for everyone who would come, so controlled immigration is called for, with few exceptions (my status as a political refugee does tint my opinion on that subject), but I believe that immigration policy should be liquid, and always be based on the needs of America.

For example, it would be perfectly acceptable to me to see immigration quotas being skewed to help the farming industry when needed, or the fishing industry. In other words, allow in what work force that we need at any particular time.

At the same time, I also believe that industry does have the right to seek specific individuals outside of the country to come work in the US. I don't consider H1-B workers as immigrants, but rather contract labor.

We need to also clean up our own house, and limit the welfare benefits paid out to new arrivals.

That's too bad for Texas.

So, hypothetically, what do you think would happen since 1 in every 20 Texans is now an illegal alien, and Texas stepped up to the plate and held their own election to stop this lunacy? And if they did, what do you think would happen in the state George Bush is from? I think the results would be predictable, as even Bush Senior came came out, and spoke out against our election here in California. I remember it clearly and can even find a quote if you like.

My point is California with all it's politically problems, at least stepped up to the plate several years ago and voted to stop this government sponsored, forced support of illegal aliens, and the government stepped in after we won and told the vast majority of Californians to F off.

All the other states out there that are being inundated with illegal aliens haven't done anything to help themselves as this ever escalating crisis continues.

So even with comment such as these

Additionally, white liberals are a relatively rare species in Texas, without the vast strongholds of leftism found in the S.F. Bay Area and Los Angeles County. The Texas rich are, by and large, moderate to conservative; their California counterparts are not. Highland Park, a wealthy, old money, in-town suburb of Dallas, was President Bush's and VP Cheney's home; Marin County, north of San Francisco, was John Walker Lindh's.

Texas, in other words, will be no pushover for a Hispanic takeover, in either slow motion or double time.

The fact remains, the huge overall majority of Californians held a free election, (prop 187) and voted to end this illegal immigration lunacy. We won, and won big, but the government had other ideas...... So even if some of your statements are true, the fact remains, California spoke loud and clear with 187 only to be bound and gagged by the government.

Over the past 50 years or so, the US has been making the transition from a republic to an empire. One of the distinguishing characteristics of an empire is the presence of numerous, distinct tribal groups all living under one, imperial government. The advent of multiculturalism and mass third world immigration has been ushered in by our imperial elite who hope to benefit from the transformation in a variety of ways.

1) The economic elites like to pay lower wages to immigrants via flooding the labor market with low skill legal and illegal immigrants.

2) The imperial political elites gain power within the imperial system by playing different groups off against one another (the imperial roman and imperial british elites were the champs of this strategy).

The elites in imperial systems tend to be urban and internationalist. They view themselves as above and separate from the various tribes who populate the empire. They must espouse a version of universalism because they realize that they cannot be seen as openly being for or of one of the consitutent tribes of the empire...that would provoke rebellion by the other tribes. Also, the elitism tends to act as a justification for the elite's rule ("we are obviously SO much more urbane and sophisticated than those rabble in fly-over country!")

Our society is in transition to an empire...it still has a central, culture group that makes up the clear majority of the population (the white middle class). In order to off-set the political influence of this group, the elites have made strategic coalitions with other tribes within the empire.

They have co-opted the black elites into the empire via the granting to them of affirmative action preferences. The black elites get cushy jobs, admission to elite universities, contract set-asides, etc. In return, these black elites steer the ideas and feelings of their people in directions that are desirable to the empire. The black elites throw the bone of welfare to their followers to keep them "on the reservation".

Immigration is also a key part of the elite's tribal-empire strategy. The elites have fostered the growth and awakening of an hispanic tribe in the US for reasons mentioned above (the council of La Raza was created by the Ford Foundation specifically to radicalize the hispanic population into a sentinent tribal unit in the empire). Immigration is a key elite pay-off to this constituency. Continued immigration is necessary for the hispanic elite in order for their tribe to grow in numbers and influence.

What this woman's article represents is an attempt by a black elite intellectual to warn the imperial elite that its program may be faltering in one big way: the great herd of white middle class america (whose apathy is critical for the completion of the imperial transformation) may actually be waking up. They are starting to pull their heads up from their grazing and focus a partially-narcotized gaze on the country around them. What happened to the world trade center? Where did all of these muslim terrorists in my neighborhood come from? Why is Trent Lott jumping for biscuits on BET?

This realization is curtains for the empire, and must be prevented at all costs (notice that this woman doesn't want to end affirmative action because she believes that discrimination is wrong....she wants to end it as a political strategy to short-circuit white middle class oppostion to her and the elite's political plans).

The elite may follow her suggestions, but I doubt it. They may make a splashy show of ending affirmative action in the supreme court...but the elite cannot end it. It is too important for buying-off the black elite and keeping them "on the team". My hunch is that they will work overtime finding devious ways to continue to discriminate against the white middle class, but make it harder to detect (as the university system in Cal is doing right now).

As for immigration...no way. It is the center piece of the elite's plans for social transformation...and is too valuable to the corporate elite. This demographic transformation MUST occur if the imperial elite is to realize their true, Caesarian dreams.

Any homogenous nation with an elite dedicated to the survival of its core cultural group would have militarized its borders by sundown on Sept 11. The fact that ours are still wide open for any terrorist to waltz across, shows just how powerful the forces for open borders really are. Even at the cost of another terrorist attack on 9/11's scale, the borders will remain open.

But hey....no one ever said empire comes cheap.

Neither the Texas nor the California political establishments would countenance any restrictive measures on government services given to illegal aliens being passed by the Legislature. Unlike the Califormia Constitution, the Texas Constitution provdes no way for the citizenry to trump the legislature through referendum.

Texas' saving grace is that the state government provides fewer and less costly services than does California. Also, the Lone Star State lacks an income tax. Its beauracracy and regulations are far less restrictive than in California. Perhaps Texans lack the ability to override the Legislature, but at least our state government is less oppressive than that of the Golden State.

I am sorry for what has happened to California, nor do I assume that Texas will escape the former state's fate. However, there are certain factors at play in California, specifically, the large volume of white liberals, who facilitated the leftist takeover of that state and possibly the future establishment of Atzlan there, which are not the case with regard to the Lone Star State.

Many liberals and "moderates" act in a conservative manner when face with a specific issue. Liberalism, carried to its logical conclusion, is self-destructive of wealth, health, and family. For example, very few wealthy white liberals in Washington's Georgetown section entrust their children's education to the District's public schools. The average citizen of some liberal hellhole like New York City is expected to lie down and die, be raped, or be robbed when confronted by a mugger. Not so that city's political elite! They can obtain gun permits easily.

There were other propositions in California, such as the property tax rollback, that passed by a wide margin. Even Massachusetts came within a few percentage points of abolishing that state's income tax last month. Few "gay rights" propositions receive a majority of the vote; state level Equal Rights Amendments went down in flames, for the most part. Gun control initiatives seldom pass in referenda.

To summarize, electorates in both California and elsewhere will vote in a more conservative manner than their legislatures and high courts do. However, too large a portion of the electorate simply disconnect their choice of candidates from their personal beliefs. Too many votes select a candidate for providing funds for a new highway or helping fund the expansion of the local college than for principled positions.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.