Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.At minimum, we can be happy that this bit of excretum was not allowed to retain power.
This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. - Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens
[Hat Tip: Rich Lowry at NRO.]
5 comments:
Jeff,
That quote does represent the racism of the past. But are you aware of the racialist movement and its effect on today's conservatism? There are many 'alternative Right' conservatives that are influenced by social scientists like Richard Lynn, Phillip Rushton, James Watson, and Charles Murray. The racialist movement starts with IQ scores and other differences that manifest themselves when populations are measured such as criminal pathology and reproductive (child-rearing) habits.
The "race-realist" Right argue that blacks and Hispanics possess less cognitive abilities than whites and thus do not possess the same civilizational abilities. They also believe that because of lower intelligence that they will be, on average, less moral and more criminal. The political conclusion is that America must return to its pre-60s version and become once again a white dominated country and culture. Many racialists want to re-invision America as white only.
I bring this up because this racialist phenomenon is not small. The racialist presence on the internet is huge. Just Google up the Human Bio-Diversity movement or alt-Right icon Steve Sallier or Larry Auster. These are very popular figures with sizable internet followings. I actually fear that the continued Leftist/Progressive assault on America will lend credence to these new "Evolutionary Right" racists. "Post-racial" America is a joke. I think racism is going to make a comeback. I hope I am wrong.
I'm only vaguely aware of these guys. Some guy long ago tried to taunt me into debating him on the subject with the usual "Go to VDARE and find out the truth, if you dare" kind of thing.
I asked him not to post.
I don't know what the size of their audience is, but they're going to find it hard to peel off any appreciable percentage of today's conservatives... or any other demographic.
Racism is dead and I don't see it coming back, despite the Left's attempt to use it to keep or gain power.
At least that's one positive cultural trend from the past 40 years. Most people rightly see racism (or racialism, if you want) as revolting. The reactions sometimes go too far and are motivated by political correctness, rather than sound thinking, but at least today one can argue that virtually no one is denied a job, housing, education, or even friendship on the basis of race.
And, that attitude is even more pronounced among the younger demographic, so I don't see it making a comeback.
Naturally, with the size and ubiquity of the Internet it's easier than in the past for some nutjob to gain an audience. Funny, though, how my readership stays in the handful range. Maybe they can give me some marketing lessons.
Even if every claim made by the gentlemen madmax named were accurate -- and that is not what I am saying -- the only morally supportable course of action would still be to deal with individuals as individuals.
Ability is heterogeneously distributed among individuals; of this we have overwhelming evidence. Whether that distribution of ability is linked in any way to visible racial characteristics is irrelevant.
Ken,
What you say is perfectly true, and I very much doubt that Max would disagree.
You may have misread him if you're ascribing to him any sort of belief in racial difference in intelligence, etc generated by genetics or whatever.
Max wasn't touting those who make such claims. He was just making me aware of them.
If he is the madmax I believe him to be, he would never accept such a collectivist view of human beings as you seem to be implying.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comment. Always welcome.
Oh, no, I beg your (and madmax's) pardon. Not what I was implying at all. I was trying to add to madmax's argument; he seems to be saying Lynn, Rushton, Murray, et al are arguing from a flawed premise. I opine that even if the premise were dead accurate, we would still be morally bound to deal with individuals as individuals -- covering madmax's flank, as it were.
Post a Comment