Pages

Friday, March 22, 2019

Racial inclusivism

i) The liberal establishment scapegoats white men for being white. Scapegoating innocent white guys for being white has the ironic effect of pushing some of them into the arms of white nationalism. And they are then attacked for being racists. It's both a vicious cycle and self-fulfilling prophecy.

ii) At present, a lot of white men have a legitimate grievance, because they are at or near the bottom of the intersectional spoils system. A system that discriminates against white men. That harms innocent white males. That should be opposed. 

iii) I'd like to segue from that to a related issue. Historically, the white evangelical church (in America) was, for the most part, on the wrong side of the civil rights movement. Nowadays it's done a 180. And that's generally for the best, although some segments of the evangelical church are overcorrecting for the past. 

iv) Which brings me to the main point. I suspect white supremacists think human beings naturally prefer to be with "their own kind". When modern-day evangelicals go out of their way to be racially inclusive, I suspect white supremacists think that's a case of theology suppressing what we really feel. And that's a reason for them to reject Christianity. They don't believe white evangelicals feel that way deep down, but misguided piety forces them to adopt that attitude because they think that's how they are supposed to feel about other races. White nationalists think that's well-meaning B.S. 

I don't know enough about the Alt Right or modern white nationalism to say that for a fact. It's just a hunch. But assuming that's the case, I'd like to address it head-on. Is evangelical racial inclusivism inauthentic? Are we sublimating our true impulses? Do we naturally prefer the company of our own race?

v) Many people live in racially homogenous enclaves. It's natural to feel more at ease with the people you grew up with, the people you spend most of your time with. And if that's an ethnic or racial enclave, then you're apt to feel more at ease with members of your own race or ethnicity. 

On a related note, we're more at ease with people who speak our language. If speaking a second language is effortful, then that has a somewhat distancing or alienating effect. Since it's easier to speak our own language, easier to communicate with people who speak the same language. 

In that regard, we can multiple examples in which people prefer to be with "their own kind". However, that's deceptive. In that context, do they prefer their company because they share the same racial/ethnic identity, or is that a contingent and incidental effect of living in a racial enclave? If your social circle is the same ethnicity or race, then the side effect is to prefer members of your own race since you've been saturated in that social environment. That's your conscious, as well as subconscious, frame of reference. 

Furthermore, language cuts across racial lines inasmuch as members of the same race frequently speak different languages while members different races frequently speak the same language. 

vi) If, however, you grew up in a racially heterogenous community, then social bonds might cut across racial lines. For instance, people tend to be more at ease with members of the same social class. But that's not a racial category. Members of different ethnic groups can and often do belong to the same social class–be it upper class, middle class, or working class. They have more in common at that level of comparison. Conversely, there can be antipathies between different social classes. 

vii) To take another example, if you have a multiethnic sports team, that's a setting in which men naturally become friends. The same dynamic occurs in military units. In those settings, racial differences are secondary.

viii) Consider guys who like the same movie genre (e.g. science fiction). Or play the same video games. Or the same sports (e.g. football, ice hockey, martial arts). That gives them a common domain of discourse. That transcends race. 

ix) In addition, we have natural rapport with some individuals. That's a basis of friendship. We click with certain people. That has far more to do with temperament or common interests than race. Conversely, there are folks who rub us the wrong way. And these are often members of our own race or people-group. For instance, it's not like being white automatically makes you simpatico with other whites. 

x) Even at the fundamental level of the family, there are people who prefer their friends to their relatives. Likewise, teenage boys and young bachelors naturally hang out with each other. Maturation includes an independent streak. You seek out and form attachments to people other than your relatives. 

xi) The ironic upshot is that white nationalism is artificial. I don't think we're naturally closer to members of our own race. And even if that were true as a default generality, many factors can neutralize that default generality. Christian racial inclusivism isn't a foreign veneer. Race doesn't run that deep. 

13 comments:

  1. "Historically, the white evangelical church (in America) was, for the most part, on the wrong side of the civil rights movement"

    While there was mistreatment of blacks, I still come down on the side that an employer should be free to hire whom he wants even if he doesn't want to hire someone for an illegitimate reason (such as race). Same for landlords and other private property owners. The non discrimination idea has been bad for the US. There is a straight line from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to affirmative action to mass third world immigration to same sex marriage.

    "The ironic upshot is that white nationalism is artificial. I don't think we're naturally closer to members of our own race. And even if that were true as a default generality, many factors can neutralize that default generality. Christian racial inclusivism isn't a foreign veneer. Race doesn't run that deep."

    Well consider family. A man may divorce his wife and never speak to her again even if the divorce wasn't particular bad. But he will still help his biological children even if they ne'er do wells. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a similar innate concern for one's race and nation. Yes there have been successful multi-cultural empires (for a while at least) but they tend to break up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim Crow criminalized freedom of association. It was the opposite of letting businesses make their own choices. There's an elementary difference between mandatory segregation and mandatory integration. There's a mediating position.

      There's no necessary correlation between race and family. Men marry or mate with beautiful women regardless of race. Likewise, women of one race may "marry up" (marry a trophy husband) of another race. In both cases, their biological kids are biracial.

      Delete
    2. Based on studies of identical twins separated at birth and adopted into different homes, it's clear that most psychological traits have some genetic component. Even politics and religiosity have been found to have a genetic component, although not nearly as high as intelligence.

      People may mate with people of a different race or people they don't find particularly attractive. However marriage generally has a component of child raising. My guess would be that interracial marriages are more common on second marriages when children aren't likely, although I don't know. Men who marry women of a different race probably marry those with features similar to their own. I see white men who marry lighter skinned East Asians or blacks.

      I can only speak for myself, but I find it hard to imagine that a typical white male would find an Australian Aborigine attractive or a Negrito from the Philippines. One of the reasons why I married a white women is that I do not find mixed race children attractive.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. The one area where anti discrimination laws haven't penetrated (yet) are religious services. Religious services are the most segregated area of life in the USA. This suggests to me that when given the choice, people prefer to associate with their own racial/ethnic group. In fact, mixed race people often attend mixed race churches (by that I mean churches that explicitly cater to mixed race people).

      There is also the phenomenon of mestizo countries where the elite self-consciously marry their own. This is a common in some Afro-Carribean countries (consider Eric Holder for example) and also Latin American countries. The Spanish elite in Latin America marry fellow Spaniards or moderately mixed race, not pure meso-americans.

      Delete
    5. I don't think many white guys would turn down Lena Horne, Nichelle Nichols, Aishwarya Rai, or Polynesian beauties.

      Delete
    6. Shirley Verrett was a very alluring woman, both vocally and visually.

      Delete
    7. "Men who marry women of a different race probably marry those with features similar to their own. I see white men who marry lighter skinned East Asians or blacks."

      Wut. So many other "features" are different between whites, East Asians, and blacks.

      Not to mention some scientists have argued that, genetically speaking, many sub-Saharan Africans differ more from one another than they do with whites.

      Further, some scientists argue many native Africans (not African Americans) have some Eurasian DNA, which suggests there may have been some intermingling between Eurasians and Africans in the distant past.

      All this is just the tip of the iceberg. Much more could be said.

      Delete
    8. Lots of beautiful mixed kids. Including white and black, Latino, Asian, etc. Take Chloe Bennett, Kristin Kreuk, Elodie Yung, Jessica Henwick, Norah Jones, Ariana Miyamoto, etc.

      Delete
    9. "My guess would be that interracial marriages are more common on second marriages when children aren't likely, although I don't know."

      Anecdotally, I'd guess the majority of my peers who have married (first time married, some with kids) are married to races/ethnicities not their own. At least I suspect it's around 50-50. To be fair, I've almost always lived in liberal or progressive places. Most are secular.

      Delete
  2. " . . . white nationalism is artificial."

    Consider that related groups (Serbs and Croats for example) don't get along. Of course there are other factors (religion). But this indicates that, say, a Minnesota with a half white and half Somali population wouldn't be a pleasant place to live.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The primary problem with Somali immigrants is religious: Islam. There can also be an issue if a people-group has no work ethic.

      The Serb/Croat hostility isn't racial, is it?

      Delete
    2. I agree. It's hard to separate the racial/ethnic aspect to things from other factors such as religion. What's the difference in religion between Czechs and Slovaks (I gather they are generally both catholic although the former quite secular) and they broke up. Germany held together in spite of religion.

      Delete