Rush not racist enough?
Published November 10, 2004
Blogger, libertarian and bigot Andy Nowicki has been giving some thought to the extinction of his 'race,' — which he believes to be "white people." He is also considering what is wrong with the American Right. Nowicki is peeved, as much with conservatives as liberals. He says that the Right is wrong not to be more racist.
He has posted his lamentations at Thornwalker.
There is much consternation on the Right these days about low birthrates in Western countries and all that this trend signifies.
Naturally, the consternation is shared only by real conservatives, not the Limbaugh/Hannity shilling-for-Bush crowd, which may be called the "Right-light." After all, expressing concern about the decline of the populations of Western countries is equivalent, basically, to saying that you care about the future of the white race. And that's "racist," isn't it, class? Yes, of course it is. What good little boys and girls you all are. You've learned your lessons well.
Of course, I needn't add that the same principle doesn't apply for anyone of any race other than whites, because you already knew that, too. Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and anyone else of a non-Caucasian persuasion can care about the futures of their races, but whites are not allowed to be anything but indifferent about what will become of their own kind. White "Right-light" spokesmen such as Rush and Sean, and their legion of (predominantly white) followers, don't dare say they believe in anything other than "colorblindness," racially speaking. They don't spend much time worrying about the fact that white people aren't reproducing, and if by some accident they happened to stumble upon Pat Buchanan's book, they would conclude that the "death of the West" he describes is much ado about nothing.
. . .It would never occur to them that the precipitous demographic decline of the white race could have many unpleasant, unwanted ramifications, not just for white people, but for all people. After all, they aren't so "racist" as to think that race can mean something more than mere color of skin, i.e., that St. Martin might have oversimplified things a bit for rhetorical purposes.
For despite their seeming refusal to get with the multicult program, most Limbaugh Republicans are good little boys, too. They capitulate to neo-Stalinist etiquette and use terms such as "African American" whenever possible, ostentatiously furrow their brows over "racism" (a concept they never define but still acknowledge as the greatest evil to befall the world since man's expulsion from the Garden), and claim St. Martin as one of their own. At the same time, they never demand to be called "European Americans" and always shy away from truly biting satire, such as demanding that whites receive reparations in return for being subjected to cannibalism and the more modern varieties of violent crime. And they wouldn't mention the Wichita Massacre for a million dollars — not that most of them need the money, anyway.
- Rush not racist enough?
- Published: November 10, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Mac Diva
- Mac Diva's BC Writer page
- Mac Diva's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Nowicki ought to contrast Buchanan's book (which I haven't read but have heard summarized) with Guy Garcia's The New Mainstream. The purported "influx" of "aliens" and the inveitable demographic shift in America (and the world as a whole) may mean a shift in various cultural perceptions, but ultimately it should mean a richer culture as well.
A couple of thoughts/questions. First, Mac, how do you think it best to examine the obviously touchy issue of racial differences in athletic performance? Many do seem to want to create some sort of corollary (i.e., that one race is "better" in athletics, another is "better" in academics, etc) when no such corollary can necessarily be proven. Yet at the same time, I remember an article years ago (I think in Sports Illustrated) that said something to the effect of: "160 men have run the 100 meters in under 10 seconds - and not one of them was white." Where, though, do racial distinctions blur into cultural ones, in the sense that for many African-Americans athletics are perceived as the primary means of success, and they are perhaps more driven to succeed as a result?
And when people suggest that there is some sort of relationship between academic performance and athletic performance along racial lines, it must again be remembered how culture can play into it. My wife was at a church function recently talking to a woman from Milwaukee. The woman told her how her daughter had not performed well on some sort of standardized logic test and she'd been very upset until she looked at some of the questions - including one that featured several pictures and instructed the child to put the pictures in the "right" order.
The pictures showed a person (a) outside a hair salon with long hair, (b) sitting in the barber's chair and (c) outside the salon with short hair. The woman's daughter ordered them (c), (b), (a), which according to the test was wrong. Yet as the woman noted in her conversation with my wife, in her community (an African-American one, which becomes important at this point in the story, I suppose), women frequently go to the salon to get LONGER hair (i.e., extensions).
The point? It is important to note that culture often plays an important role in what seems "logical," and disparities in academic performance may be the result of culture or environment (or poor schools) as opposed to race. It's a far more complicated issue than many people like to assume.
X number of men have performed Y feat, and none of them have Z 'trait.' They also don't have A-L traits. For example, none of them were women. Nor were any of them slew-footed or bowlegged. So, the jump from 'they are all dark-skinned people of African descent' to 'being a dark-skinned person of African descent causes people to run fast' is not really supported. The overwhelming majority of dark-skinned people of African descent don't run fast. The genetic differential within a so-called race is just as great as those interracially. A tall person has more in common with any other tall person genetically than he does with a short or moderate height person of his own 'race.' There may be a combination of factors that explain why Kenyans are good runners, but 'race' doesn't. I would have to check to see if SI's claim is true. I'm skeptical about it. Since most nonwhites were shut out of the Olympics until the 1960s, white people held records in just about every sport.
Nor does the jump from an (unproven) claim that 'race' determines athletic ability to being athletic correlates with being unintelligent make any sense. Why would that be true? What little viable research there is on bright people, especially moderately bright people, suggests that they tend to be above average both physically and intellectually.
Bill, I was nearly always the smartest kid in my class -- even after transferring to a ritzy private school on a scholarship for junior high. There is very little I haven't heard about why bright people of color can't exist. It is a compulsion with some white people to pound away whenever they see their illusion shattered. The network of clever people of color I communicate with gets a kick out of trading stories about the really weird and telling stuff some white people do to protect themselves from equality.
The most amusing thing to me about Nowicki's site is he apparently expects people to pay $2 a shot to read his drivel. Amazing.
"They also don't have A-L traits."
Very good point.
I had to actually visit his site to confirm the $2 donation thing.
Hah!
hey, that gives me a cool idea to raise funds - i can write just as good crap as any nutter. All i gotta do is...fake being a nutter. It can't be too hard surely? plus, i'll be using the money for a (slightly) better cause - I aim to go on the July 2005 Trekforce expedition to Belize. Which reminds me, i'll have a mini site setup shortly with donation details (hint, hint) and, if you are from the UK and willing to give a few personal details, i get extra for free! (it's called Gift Aid)
Bleh. The concern for birthrates vs. immigration is valid & of interest to right & left, but putting it in racist terms isn't needed.
Unfortunately, if anyone brings up the issue, now someone will point to screeds like this and say, "so you're a racist", which is complete twaddle.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/22060)
One or two of the things you say about Nowicki seem to be more assumptions than facts (not that you're necessarily wrong), but overall he does seem to be racist. That first bit of his in your post starts off measured, reasonable enough and even strikes a chord (however softly), but the last paragraph of that lot reveals his true colours.
You might want to swap "victims" and "perpetrators" in that "reasonably related" bit, though.