Are black people genetically aggressive/disruptive?

[Sooga]

That whole 'I hate blacks' thread reminded me of something. No, not that I hate blacks, but something else. I'd love to find some good material about this... if anyone knows any, let me know.

As some of you know, I work as a high school teacher, and while the school is located in a 'white' neighborhood, we have students bussed into our school from downtown L.A., where the majority are black/hispanic. We were given some statistics the other day, and they are pretty revealing:

http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-bin/fccgi.exe?w3exec=cbeds3&which=location_code&info=8 880

Approximately 17% of our student body is black.

http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-bin/fccgi.exe?w3exec=school.profile.content&which=8880 #student_adjustment

Yet blacks were 43% of the suspensions and 40% of opportunity transfers (where a kid is basically kicked out of school and moved to another school because he's such a problem). Sure, hispanics were 34% of suspensions, but they also make up 36% of the student body, so that certainly isn't anything alarming.

In class, the disruptive kids are usually the blacks (and usually the males). This is not to say that all black male students are disruptive, but just that those who ARE disruptive are usually black males. I'm not trying to stereotype in any way, this is just the way things have been in my classes (and in the classes of some co-workers I have spoken to). So what's the deal? Is it environment? I don't buy that because many of the hispanic students come from the exact same neighborhoods. Is there some good literature you guys have read on this topic?

[Shajen]

I don't think the color is the problem, it's the environment these disruptive students are coming from.

Not a race thing at all I don't think.

[AngryCola]

:groans at the impending carnage:

[deacsoft]

[ QUOTE ]
:groans at the impending carnage:

[/ QUOTE ]

:does likewise:

[Sooga]

Don't mean for there to be carnage, but this is a common problem, not just in my school, but in high schools around us which have similar bussing situations. I wouldn't be surprised if it were the same sort of statistics across the country.

[lapoker17]

Oh Jesus.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
:groans at the impending carnage:

[/ QUOTE ]

KILL WHITEY!

[ThaSaltCracka]

I would imagine its necause a high propensity of urban african americans live in single parent homes without strong(usually father) figure in their life. This lake of discipline carries over to the classroom.

[Sooga]

I'm not trying to stir sh*t up, I want some possible answers here. I've been teaching for 3 years now and every year it's the same story. If you can't come up with any answers or don't know any literature about it, then go away.

[Sooga]

I know a lot of hispanic kids come from single parent homes as well.... i wonder if a larger percentage of black kids come from single parent homes. There's gotta be a book or something about this. I'm gonna go look.

[Shajen]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to stir sh*t up, I want some possible answers here. I've been teaching for 3 years now and every year it's the same story. If you can't come up with any answers or don't know any literature about it, then go away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I gave you an answer. What am I, chopped liver?

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
Approximately 17% of our student body is black.
...
Yet blacks were 43% of the suspensions and 40% of opportunity transfers (where a kid is basically kicked out of school and moved to another school because he's such a problem). Sure, hispanics were 34% of suspensions, but they also make up 36% of the student body, so that certainly isn't anything alarming.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not gonna call you a racist, here, but your question does seem kind of ignorant...

before looking at racial(genetic) causes for an answer to the gap in disciplinary rates, you should have considered social and economic factors. Maybe you could take some sociology classes at the local CC or something?

[Sooga]

hahah.... thanks for the input, I'm just sick of all the posters who have nothing to say and say it anyway.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I know a lot of hispanic kids come from single parent homes as well.... i wonder if a larger percentage of black kids come from single parent homes. There's gotta be a book or something about this. I'm gonna go look.

[/ QUOTE ]well then I have no answer for you.

[lapoker17]

OK, my best friend teaches 5th grade in South Central, and the stuff he tells me is unbelievable. His students are largely minorities, and an enormous percentage come from single parent homes.

This is almost solely a socio economic problem and not one of race. I went to a stuffy East Coast private school, and the white scholarship athletes from the city were far more aggressive and disruptive than the black kids from the suburbs whose fathers were doctors & lawyers.

[Zoltri]

I have a teenage stepson (remember him?) who would rank first in aggressive/disruptive behaviour and he is as white as the driven snow.

[Voltron87]

Poor white kids from broken homes are disruptive too.

You should have also looked at socioeconomic/household factors (race blind). You can't just look at race, that's only one circumstance/factor out of a many.

[Sooga]

Unfortunately, our school doesn't have that sort of information, but it would certainly be enlightening. The high school I went to was in a pretty upper middle-class neighborhood and we didn't have a lot of lower-income students attending, so I really don't have much expeirence with this. I wonder what the actual link is between socioeconomic status and behavior... there are a few books about this, I knew which was better than the others

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
hahah.... thanks for the input, I'm just sick of all the posters who have nothing to say and say it anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had something to say, and I was not the only one who had that reaction to your post.

It's nice that you aren't trying to stir things up, but it's going to happen anyway.
That's the point.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, our school doesn't have that sort of information, but it would certainly be enlightening. The high school I went to was in a pretty upper middle-class neighborhood and we didn't have a lot of lower-income students attending, so I really don't have much expeirence with this. I wonder what the actual link is between socioeconomic status and behavior... there are a few books about this, I knew which was better than the others

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't make judgement based on one variable alone and ignore the others, so the statistics you posted are useless.

[craig r]

You are looking at one instance. Adolf Hitler was pretty disruptive/aggressive. The U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on a country, that is pretty disruptive/aggressive. The British (along with other "white" countries) killed millions of Native American. I would find it hard to believe that these things were done because "white" people are inherently more aggressive (nor would i say that all of these things were done for the same reasons).

craig

[wacki]

Answers to all of your questions, if they can be found, can be found here:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi)

[Sooga]

I'm not making a judgement. I'm trying to offer a reason for those numbers. I never said that these percentages PROVE that blacks are more disruptive. But this data could certainly provide support for that, if it were true. And finding out if it is true or not is what I'm trying to figure out, through a book or some sort of published study.

[craig r]

I believe Sooga that if you look hard enough you will find something to prove this theory right or you can look and prove it wrong.

craig

[zuluking]

I'm not going to waste time reading the responses. I'll only say that just asking the question smacks of racism.

[craig r]

<sarcasm>don't you know..it is the white people like Jakethebake that are being discrimanated against. He can't even say "spear chucker" without people getting upset. I am sorry, he can say it, but only on the computer. <sarcasm>

craig

[istewart]

If you can't deal with racism, kill yourself.

[craig r]

when did i say i can't deal with it?

craig

[Duke]

I think the problem is that society cultivates a deep inferiority complex in certain minority members. This leads to all sorts of things, aggressive behavior being one of them.

I'm not saying that anyone is inferior based on race or whatever, but that that's what the rest of the nation sells to them so effectively that in their hearts it becomes a strong possibility, leading to desires to "prove" that they're just as good as everyone else.

~D

[Rushmore]

I haven't read any of the responses, but I thought I'd mention that...

I have a white friend who was raised in Kenya, and my sister is a doctor for the CDC who lived in Botswana for five years. Both of them have told me how truly lovely the people were there, how gentle and gracious, intelligent and really very sweet, generally speaking.

Having just gotten back from the Bahamas, I can assure you, the black folks there were very much as described above (and I don't mean they smiled big and got my drink when I told them to. I mean they seemed like genuinely happy, intelligent, gentle souls.).


Obviously, there are problems intrinsic to every culture.

Is it perhaps true that the problem you describe--if one exists--is unique to African- American culture?

[Sooga]

Another great point.... now that you mention it, I did have a couple of African (literally from a high school in Africa) friends in college, and they were as nice as any other people I've ever met, and in fact I remember them curious as to why the blacks over here seemed so much more aggressive... Now, I wonder if that's an African-American thing, or just an American thing. Man I need a book.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to waste time reading the responses. I'll only say that just asking the question smacks of racism.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. I'm sure you wouldn't have had a problem if he said "Do black people have better jumping ability than white people?" Explain how this is different.

[girgy44]

Zulu biitch shut the fuuck up. Just because someone asks a question it is racist. Man you're a little sensitive on the subject. If we really are racist then we SHOULD be asking the question so we can work on it.

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't. I'm sure you wouldn't have had a problem if he said "Do black people have better jumping ability than white people?" Explain how this is different.

[/ QUOTE ]

One is a physical trait, the other a mental/habitual trait.

You'd be hard pressed to find genetic evidence supporting the latter.

Anyways, I think the concept of black people being genetically aggressive/disrputive is retarded. This is a social/cultural problem, not a racial one. I have friends that happen to be black, and I know white individuals who are ghetto and aggressive. And I'm in the suburbs! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

The guy who posted about being in Kenya and Caribbean is spot on.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
One is a physical trait, the other a mental/habitual trait. You'd be hard pressed to find genetic evidence supporting the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can physical traits be genetic, but not mental traits?

[ QUOTE ]
Anyways, I think the concept of black people being genetically aggressive/disrputive is retarded. This is a social/cultural problem, not a racial one. I have friends that happen to be black, and I know white individuals who are ghetto and aggressive. And I'm in the suburbs!

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know they aren't exceptions to the rule? Variance, man, variance.

I'm looking at this from a purely scientific standpoint. Not all species are the same, so perhaps not all races of humans are the same.

I shouldn't have to say this, but here's a disclaimer -- I'm not racist. Maybe lazy, overweight, white males between the ages of 18 and 35 (in other words, me) are the most aggressive/disruptive. I'm not saying it has to be blacks or any other race for that matter. I am just open to the possibility that different races are genetically different mentally. I don't think that is too much of a stretch.

[ClaytonN]

I'm big on nature over nurture

Both physical and mental traits can be genetic, but I'll be damned if a scientist ever finds a gene that proves black people are more disruptive.

[CrazyEyez]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to waste time reading the responses. I'll only say that just asking the question smacks of racism.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's ridiculous. I'm not going to waste my time explaining why.

[Zoltri]

CrazyEyez...you continually impress me with your posts.
/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[CrazyEyez]

[ QUOTE ]
CrazyEyez...you continually impress me with your posts.
/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Awww, shucks... /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not gonna call you a racist, here, but your question does seem kind of ignorant...

before looking at racial(genetic) causes for an answer to the gap in disciplinary rates, you should have considered social and economic factors. Maybe you could take some sociology classes at the local CC or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

He mentioned if it's an environmental thing. This looks like an honest question, even if his line of thinking is easy to disagree with.

I don't think economic factors play as big of a role as the social factor. Both are linked, sure, but someone growing up poor with good parents will probably turn out better than someone growing up rich but with parents who either aren't around or who let the kids run wild. Also, the environment itself can mold people. When I go to Chicago, or even parts of Milwaukee, every social situation, including just driving a car, seems so much more aggressive.

I wouldn't say genetics can't play a part in the original question, but I would say other factors far outweigh the genetics.

And to anyone who thinks topics and honest questions like this are racist, learn what the term means before you carelessly go tossing it around. Reminds me of a movie thing -- Equality won't come from a black person not playing a criminal in a movie; Equality comes when a black person can freely play a criminal in a movie.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
Both physical and mental traits can be genetic, but I'll be damned if a scientist ever finds a gene that proves black people are more disruptive.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because of their medulla oblongata.

On second thought, I don't think I've ever experienced a case of a black guy being anything but generally easy-going and friendly. Women, on the other hand, tend to be crazy. I think that's just the woman thing, and not the black thing, though.

~D

[ilya]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!

[beckham9]

[ QUOTE ]
That whole 'I hate blacks' thread reminded me of something. No, not that I hate blacks, but something else. I'd love to find some good material about this... if anyone knows any, let me know.

As some of you know, I work as a high school teacher, and while the school is located in a 'white' neighborhood, we have students bussed into our school from downtown L.A., where the majority are black/hispanic. We were given some statistics the other day, and they are pretty revealing:

http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-bin/fccgi.exe?w3exec=cbeds3&which=location_code&info=8 880

Approximately 17% of our student body is black.

http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-bin/fccgi.exe?w3exec=school.profile.content&which=8880 #student_adjustment

Yet blacks were 43% of the suspensions and 40% of opportunity transfers (where a kid is basically kicked out of school and moved to another school because he's such a problem). Sure, hispanics were 34% of suspensions, but they also make up 36% of the student body, so that certainly isn't anything alarming.

In class, the disruptive kids are usually the blacks (and usually the males). This is not to say that all black male students are disruptive, but just that those who ARE disruptive are usually black males. I'm not trying to stereotype in any way, this is just the way things have been in my classes (and in the classes of some co-workers I have spoken to). So what's the deal? Is it environment? I don't buy that because many of the hispanic students come from the exact same neighborhoods. Is there some good literature you guys have read on this topic?

[/ QUOTE ]


They allowed you to become a High School Teacher? I truly feel sorry for any kids who are tought by you.

[BusterStacks]

Yes, don't make direct eye contact with them.

[PoBoy321]

Oooh, I remember that stepson. I'm very curious to find out what happened. New thread, perhaps?

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
They allowed you to become a High School Teacher? I truly feel sorry for any kids who are tought by you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I salute you, Mr. Leftist Hippy With Nothing Better To Do Than See Everything Anybody Says As Racist, Man.

It's amazing how saying the word "black" or mentioning how ridiculous "religion" is induces every moron to announce that in fact they are retarded. It saves so much effort when determining whether or not you're dealing with idiots.

~D

[PoBoy321]

This isn't a book that specifically deals with your question, but still an interesting one to look into.

The Land Where The Blues Began (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565847393/qid=1106295812/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-6215692-9012103?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Alan Lomax.

Alan Lomax was a record producer the in 1920's and was largely responsible for the explosion of Delta Blues around that time. This book chronicles his journeys through the Mississippi delta and all of the people he encountered there.

It is also a chronicle of horrible social conditions in which many poor blacks lived in the pre-civil rights era.

I think that part of the answer you're looking for would come out in looking at the social conditions in which blacks in America have lived for the past hundred years.

I don't think that it's racial or even necessarily economic (although that does go hand-in-hand with social) factors that may have caused black students to be more disruptive than others, but you have to realize that the black experience in america has been far different than any other racial group, which would probably explain why hispanic students aren't causing the same problems as black students.

[PoBoy321]

I would feel much more comfortable with a teacher who questions than one who accepts.

Sooga isn't asking this question because in his mind, black kids are pains in the ass and no one else is. He's asking it because statistics at his school, in addition to anecdotal evidence, have lead him to believe that african american students cause a disproportinately larger number of problems than students of other ethnic groups. I see his curiosity as neither racist or ignorant, but rather an important step in bridging racial divides.

P.S. I'm one of the biggest pinko-commie-leftists you'll ever meet (I would have been with protesters at the inauguration today if my GF weren't a republican), so I probably see racism in more situations than most. This, however, is not one of them.

[daveymck]

This isnt just in America, the same conditions exist in the UK too. It is more to do with the social and economic conditions plus the expection (or lack of it) that blacks have re job prospects. A large proportion of British blacks live in poor inner city areas where unemployment is high and job prospects poor so there is a lack of motivation to do well in school and I expect peer pressure etc etc.

Interestingly in the UK there is a great gap opening between Girls and Boys with Girls doing a lot better in exam results than boys.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/890214.stm (Study of Motivation of Blacks in Education)

Schoolboys' achievements can be raised by persuading them that they can overcome a street culture that is anti-achievement, researchers say.
The culture - black-dominated but cutting across ethnic groups - means they feel they cannot be good at school and keep in with their peers, according to Tony Sewell, a lecturer in education at Leeds University

But pilot projects have shown it is possible to overcome this, he said.

The research adds to the debate about the way boys' exam results have improved more slowly than those of girls - seen in girls now doing better at A-level as well as in earlier years.

Dr Sewell's work, so far involving only a few dozen children at two schools, was commissioned by the Children's Society and the teaching union the NASUWT.

False thinking

He said they wanted not just another review of why black children were more likely to be excluded from school, but some answers to the problem.

"The children themselves are saying that it's not just racism that is the issue here, but they're finding it incredibly difficult to deal with this new sub-culture, this peer group pressure," he said.

The culture was not exclusively Afro-Caribbean but was driven by a black orientation, he said.

"I put it down to false thinking almost - where it comes from I don't know - but the children feel they cannot resolve the issue of being good at school and also in with their peer group.

"That's basically the message. I find the mantra 'institutional racism' a hurdle because we are putting in the wrong interventions and missing an opportunity of dealing with the real needs of these children."

Some are concerned that the message might be taken the wrong way.

"Music and sport all play a role in the life of the young black child - these celebrities are seen, these are the things that children want to aspire to - but it's not the only things that they know of," said Yoland Beckles of ethnic minority training and recruitment organisation, Global Graduates.

It comes back to education, she says.

"There is also an issue that needs to be discussed - and I think the government are trying to tackle that right now - in the way that white teachers are not performing well for our black children."

The Commission for Racial Equality said he was in danger of "letting the system off the hook".

Need to engage all

"Black 'culture' alone cannot be blamed for lower levels of achievement and higher exclusion rates amongst black African-Caribbean pupils," said the commission's chair, Gurbux Singh.

"Educationalists must find ways to make going to school an interesting, challenging and rewarding experience for all pupils.

"If this does not happen, Britain will have to deal with a generation of disaffected, uneducated young men with little to look forward to in terms of their employment and career prospects.

"Schools and teachers must find ways to engage all boys to tackle underachievement - black and white."

He was also concerned about the disproportionate number of black boys excluded from school.

[sameoldsht]

Somehow it's George Bush's fault. I'm not sure how, but it must be. If not him, then it's Reagan's fault. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[nothumb]

nh sir...

NT

[Shaun]

There is nothing genetic about it. Talk to some people from Africa and then compare them to the kids you speak of. There are a myriad of factors at work but all of them are environmental. American society and culture perpetuate this phenomenon-it has nothing to do with skin color.

[danderso8]

Ok, sooga, i take back what i told you in regard to your post last week...you *are* an [censored]. j/k

Seriously, though, I do agree with the rest of the posters that you need to look a lot more at the socio-economics of the situation.

A book that i would enthusiastically recommend is Counting Coups by Larry Colton, here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0446677558/qid=1106715133/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-7661607-0143069?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). It isn't about african-americans, rather Native-Americans, but it does a good job of presenting a picture of the way poverty affects students. It's also a great (true) story. Not really statistics and crap like it sounds like you are looking for, but check it out anyhow.

Now i'm gonna go find that computer question that i was searching thru your posts for till i got sidetracked.

--Dan

[Riskwise]

[ QUOTE ]
What Is Racism
by Thomas Jackson

There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism.

Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism?

Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.

The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.

All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of White people.

The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.

Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-Whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks on Whites.

At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing. To resist would be racist.

"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.

Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism.

All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist.

At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is branded as racist.

Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group - a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has "diversity" been achieved.

Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of Whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is, of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.

What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs and schooling?

Would Mexico - or any other non-White nation - tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.

There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of "hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."

Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.

Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.

Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?

No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow "hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.

What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."

What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.

[/ QUOTE ]

although i do not agree with all the views of this article, i found it pretty interesting and definitly worth reading.