Wright, et al., all have a healthy regard for the proper maintenance of the system that gives us all this daily gift of freedom and prosperity that we have. Frankly, this never ceases to amaze me, given that I am so completely conditioned to assume that a black person will ardently support any raid on the public treasury, be outraged over any and all attempts to do away with reverse discrimination, and protest loudly over insignificant slights.
I was impressed a year ago or so by a black gentleman in the Los Angeles area, as I recall, who ran a shelter for homeless people. It turns out he is a political conservative and when his liberal white landlord found this out it appears that the landlord raised the rent for the shelter to something like 10 or 12 times the previous rent. Something like that. Clearly it was an attempt to get rid of someone whose politics displeased the landlord. The black guy was interviewed and I was just simply amazed to see someone with a very dark complexion and dread locks, wearing a yellow, green, and red knit cap, but talking about property rights and how the landlord was the owner of the land and therefore was within his rights to demand any price for the use of his land in the absence of a valid lease.
It's gratifying to me to see anyone "get it" about bedrock legal principles that make this country what it is, let alone individual blacks. (Would that I could persuade more whites to learn about and defend our constitutional structure as it existed in 1789, btw. My own siblings are hopelessly left wing in their attitudes and never in their entire lives have I heard them discuss federalism, separation of powers, or Article I, Sect. 8 of the Federal Constitution.)
Wright, in her relentless exhibition of common sense and understanding of the political realities of immigration, wrote a very interesting piece about what happened to a white community in California whose ethnic composition "changed" with a vengeance:
Black writer Ellis Cose, in Newsweek ("Black Versus Brown," July 3-10, 2006), describes the two stages of rapid ethnic transformation of Lynwood, California. In the 1970s, blacks were the outsiders who migrated in large numbers into what was a "small, largely white, bedroom community" of Los Angeles. . . . Blacks quickly came to dominate the political power structure."Wright also discusses the writing of a black blogger, Byron Crawford, who is "[u]sually quite caustic in his anti-white bias":
In the meantime, Latinos were moving into Lynwood and their numbers began to grow larger. [B]y 1997, they gained full control of the council. Today, Latinos are 82% of Lynwood's population.
Cose writes that after the first Latino mayor was appointed, Amando Rea, "the city fired several blacks and dismissed some black contractors." Rev. Alfreddie Johnson is quoted, "They got rid of 15 people at one time," thirteen of whom were blacks. A Latina opponent of Rea claims that during the public promotion of Rea for mayor, Rea's supporters knocked on doors, "saying we needed to get rid of black city council members."
Cose wonders if the Lynwood example "foreshadows" America's future. Will the future be one that "will increasingly see blacks and Latinos fighting?" The answer, of course, is Yes, and not only in California, but all across the country. After all, why should Latinos -- many of whom have proven themselves to be vigorously entrepreneurial, economically ambitious, ready-to-work- from-sunup-to-sundown, and socially savvy -- yield to political domination by a group for whom much of what they possess is perceived to have been granted as gifts from coerced, blackmailed whites?[1]
[Crawford] this time . . . realistically speculates on the degree to which so-called white privilege might be indelibly linked to the privileges of freedom enjoyed by all Americans, including blacks.Newt Gingrich made much of the economic opportunity society some time back but we must still wait for white politicians to make the case for opportunity as a function of legal protection. (I may be being unfair to Mr. Gingrich. It's entirely possible he made a more extensive argument.)
. . . Crawford then reconsiders: "I wonder how much [of] what you might call American privilege is tied up in white privilege. If the U.S. becomes something along the lines of Mexico, we all stand to lose something."
In other words, isn't the way of life that we enjoy as Americans steeped in the culture of the Anglo-Euros and the "privileges" they first devised for themselves? And don't these privileges that are so much a part of our every day liberties, flow to all citizens of this country?[2]
So that you understand me clearly, I for damn sure favor all measures that will reverse the direction in the browning of America. Just as any brown or black person is free to advocate that the U.S. become darker, I am free to say that I do not like that the proportion of whites has gone from 87% to 67% without there being a vote on this by the majority white population, that there is no moral reason why whites have to accede to that change, that that change is in fact bad for the U.S. for the reasons alluded to by Mr. Crawford, and that I advocate policies to make whites 87% of the population again.
One of our most important responsibilities as the majority is to ensure minorities are protected and given equal access to the rights enjoyed by the majority. That's our only responsibility and it sure doesn't extend to giving minorities superior rights, which, coincidentally, we have done
And, though this may amaze some, it is not the responsibility of whites to cooperate in deliberate efforts to make us a minority in our own country.
Also, let me be clear that though I think the English and European heritage is the primary source of our blessings and that whites are the predominant carriers of that heritage. Many non-whites have signed on to it -- as well they should. If you'd like an object lesson on this point, see these words about the distress felt by a Nigerian woman who sees the English failing to protect the parts of England that make it a great place for people like her to live:
The Conservatives are certainly missing a trick here - the country wants direction and a national identity to be proud of and not ashamed of; someone who won’t apologise for insisting that those wanting to become citizens must learn to speak English and to pledge allegiance to the Crown, must learn the history of the country and must be able to sing the national anthem. That Christianity is the national faith, for which we make no apology for, that children must and should sing hymns in schools and have prayers.
We should stop being scared and embarrassed for wanting to be proud to be British. If the white, indigenous people are embarrassed about their identity, what hope is there for the rest of us.[3]
 |
Mr. Crawford and Ms. Wright get this last point big time and a political platform based on this kind of clarity of thought would be unbeatable and lead to a completely new "correlation of forces" as the commies like to say. The extraordinary words of a Washington, DC-area black preacher in the early 1990s point the way. To black people he said, "Africa is your heritage, but America is your destiny."
Notes
[1] "Immigration - Betrayal by black elites." By Elizabeth Wright, Issues & Views, 9/10/06.
[2] Id.
[3] "The voice of beleaguered British sanity." By Melanie Phillips, 6/11/06.
UPDATE (4/9/08):
"Blacks Want Sanctuary Law Rescinded In LA." By Rebecca Bynum, New English Review, 4/9/08.
No comments:
Post a Comment