Sunday, June 26, 2005
Our Newest Op Ed
European Politics, Far More Racist Than America's
- By Warner Todd Huston
Recently I was scanning a web message board where people from many nations come to post about their favorite political subjects and wrangle with like minded souls or friendly apostates over national and international policy. Something I saw there really caught my eye. It was an exchange over whose nation was more racist. Was it the USA or was it any of the various Western European nations?
An exchange there went something like this:
bigenglish: "Well, obviously the USA is more racist because you fellows have the Ku Klux Klan running around ruling the South."
USPatriot: "What? The KKK is a nonentity over here and has been for decades. Heck, we don't even have any Klan members in government yet you guys have whole parties that are based on racist sentiment like the BNP."
This exchange really gave me pause to think. The American poster was exactly right, of course. Certainly the USA has a history from just prior to the Civil War up until the 1960's where outright, self avowed racists have held high public office. Of course, the Ku Klux Klan had many of its members similarly holding office in the "bad old" days here in the USA between 1870 and the late 1920s or so.
But those days are long over. When Congress broke the back of the KKK in the 1920's and drove it's members out of high public office and back into the back woods encampments they came out of, it signaled the beginning of the end for mixing politics and racists in the USA. And by the time the Republicans helped lead the nation to pass the 1964 Civil Rights bill, it was becoming obvious that racism in politics was on it's last leg.......
Click HERE To Read On
- By Warner Todd Huston
Recently I was scanning a web message board where people from many nations come to post about their favorite political subjects and wrangle with like minded souls or friendly apostates over national and international policy. Something I saw there really caught my eye. It was an exchange over whose nation was more racist. Was it the USA or was it any of the various Western European nations?
An exchange there went something like this:
bigenglish: "Well, obviously the USA is more racist because you fellows have the Ku Klux Klan running around ruling the South."
USPatriot: "What? The KKK is a nonentity over here and has been for decades. Heck, we don't even have any Klan members in government yet you guys have whole parties that are based on racist sentiment like the BNP."
This exchange really gave me pause to think. The American poster was exactly right, of course. Certainly the USA has a history from just prior to the Civil War up until the 1960's where outright, self avowed racists have held high public office. Of course, the Ku Klux Klan had many of its members similarly holding office in the "bad old" days here in the USA between 1870 and the late 1920s or so.
But those days are long over. When Congress broke the back of the KKK in the 1920's and drove it's members out of high public office and back into the back woods encampments they came out of, it signaled the beginning of the end for mixing politics and racists in the USA. And by the time the Republicans helped lead the nation to pass the 1964 Civil Rights bill, it was becoming obvious that racism in politics was on it's last leg.......
Click HERE To Read On
# posted by Publius @ 6/26/2005 11:35:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Hello. I just read Warner Todd Huston's post contemplating racism in the United States and in Europe, and I have a question.
Before I ask it, I want to make some disclaimers:
I rarely have time to blog, and I have certainly never posted here. I realize that there are probably some rules of etiquette, and if my inexperience leads me to violate them unwittingly, I offer my sincerest of apologies in advance.
To wit, I suppose I should mention that people would probably characterize my politics as progressive. (I personally consider my views a synthesis of libertarianism and progressivism. If that seems oxymoronic, I'd be happy to explain to anyone interested what I mean.) I only mention this as a disclaimer because while I rarely blog, I despise "trolls," or anyone whose purpose on a blog seems to be nothing more than to disrespect or malign the philosophies of regular readers. On first glance, this blog appears Conservative, so I hope you'll believe I'm not trying to be disrespectful.
Ok. Enough of the verbose formalities.....
As someone who has extensively covered the politics of Western Europe for a news journal, I acknowledge the open presence and influence of officially racist political parties. Moreover, I agree that the United States has been monumentally successful at relegating openly racist politicians to our government's margins. In many wonderful ways, non-racists have won over Americans' hearts and minds. Failure to acknowledge such progress is one of the left's self-defeating mistakes.
Racism, however, at least in my experience, still largely permeates American culture, even if it isn't openly acknowledged or embraced. Members of many races - and again, and I can only speak to my personal experience and observations - seem to fear members of others, and to the extent that humans gravitate towards and live among perceived similars, the various ethnic cultures here are largely segregated (even if voluntarily or "self-segregated").
While I'm progressive in many ways, I have soured on "political correctness." We're all so afraid to say anything these days that could in any way be misinterpreted as racist.
So....my question is (ahh, she finally got around to it...sheesh), is racism in the United States powerful and pervasive, but simply dormant? If so, is it going dangerously unnoticed by many people, while causing others to become so paranoid about its potential that they see it when it isn't really there? And if those questions can be answered affirmatively, has political correctness paradoxically rendered America less able to combat the racism that still exists than countries in Europe, who at least allow racists to organize openly and run for office in official parties?
Hmm. I guess that amounted to several questions. My apologies. But I do hope the bloggers here will believe me when I say that I'm honestly inquiring. I'm not asking rhetorically, so as to snidely assert that the Huston was off-base.
I am honestly wondering how to measure racism here vis-a-vis Europe. Consider: most of the parties mentioned in Huston's post, such as the British National Party and Le Pen's National Front party in France, are organized and open, but that makes them identifiable. Moreover, they are largely powerless in their respective Parliaments.
Fortuyn, in my opinion, received unfair negative publicity. While undoubtedly and openly "nationalist," he was also gay and an adamant libertarian who advocated temporarily closing the Netherlands' borders, fearing that the liberal and libertarian freedoms (for which the Netherlands are often vilified throughout the world) would be lost if then-current immigration policies were continued in the post-9/11 world. That message resonated, many of his followers were Dutch immigrants themselves and even non-white. He resented his association with the BNP and the National Front and Austria's Freedom Party, and being called a racist. (Incidentally, the political and organizational chaos that followed his assassination resulted in the center-right Christian Democrats' current leadership in the Netherlands.)
The grand exception of course, would be Haider's Freedom Party in Austria, which has become hugely powerful, though it occurs to me that Haider was largely successful by employing what might be referred to as P.C. tactics. (He claims he's not racist, and contorts his own words to demonstrate it. He openly disavows Nazism.)
I won't claim to know much about Vlaams Blok in Belgium, as their current status post-dates my job covering Western Europe, though banning them from political participation would smack of a "Politically Correct" mistake, no?
I realize I am overly prolific, and I hope I haven't annoyed anyone. I submit this for your consideration and insight, and I thank you.
Before I ask it, I want to make some disclaimers:
I rarely have time to blog, and I have certainly never posted here. I realize that there are probably some rules of etiquette, and if my inexperience leads me to violate them unwittingly, I offer my sincerest of apologies in advance.
To wit, I suppose I should mention that people would probably characterize my politics as progressive. (I personally consider my views a synthesis of libertarianism and progressivism. If that seems oxymoronic, I'd be happy to explain to anyone interested what I mean.) I only mention this as a disclaimer because while I rarely blog, I despise "trolls," or anyone whose purpose on a blog seems to be nothing more than to disrespect or malign the philosophies of regular readers. On first glance, this blog appears Conservative, so I hope you'll believe I'm not trying to be disrespectful.
Ok. Enough of the verbose formalities.....
As someone who has extensively covered the politics of Western Europe for a news journal, I acknowledge the open presence and influence of officially racist political parties. Moreover, I agree that the United States has been monumentally successful at relegating openly racist politicians to our government's margins. In many wonderful ways, non-racists have won over Americans' hearts and minds. Failure to acknowledge such progress is one of the left's self-defeating mistakes.
Racism, however, at least in my experience, still largely permeates American culture, even if it isn't openly acknowledged or embraced. Members of many races - and again, and I can only speak to my personal experience and observations - seem to fear members of others, and to the extent that humans gravitate towards and live among perceived similars, the various ethnic cultures here are largely segregated (even if voluntarily or "self-segregated").
While I'm progressive in many ways, I have soured on "political correctness." We're all so afraid to say anything these days that could in any way be misinterpreted as racist.
So....my question is (ahh, she finally got around to it...sheesh), is racism in the United States powerful and pervasive, but simply dormant? If so, is it going dangerously unnoticed by many people, while causing others to become so paranoid about its potential that they see it when it isn't really there? And if those questions can be answered affirmatively, has political correctness paradoxically rendered America less able to combat the racism that still exists than countries in Europe, who at least allow racists to organize openly and run for office in official parties?
Hmm. I guess that amounted to several questions. My apologies. But I do hope the bloggers here will believe me when I say that I'm honestly inquiring. I'm not asking rhetorically, so as to snidely assert that the Huston was off-base.
I am honestly wondering how to measure racism here vis-a-vis Europe. Consider: most of the parties mentioned in Huston's post, such as the British National Party and Le Pen's National Front party in France, are organized and open, but that makes them identifiable. Moreover, they are largely powerless in their respective Parliaments.
Fortuyn, in my opinion, received unfair negative publicity. While undoubtedly and openly "nationalist," he was also gay and an adamant libertarian who advocated temporarily closing the Netherlands' borders, fearing that the liberal and libertarian freedoms (for which the Netherlands are often vilified throughout the world) would be lost if then-current immigration policies were continued in the post-9/11 world. That message resonated, many of his followers were Dutch immigrants themselves and even non-white. He resented his association with the BNP and the National Front and Austria's Freedom Party, and being called a racist. (Incidentally, the political and organizational chaos that followed his assassination resulted in the center-right Christian Democrats' current leadership in the Netherlands.)
The grand exception of course, would be Haider's Freedom Party in Austria, which has become hugely powerful, though it occurs to me that Haider was largely successful by employing what might be referred to as P.C. tactics. (He claims he's not racist, and contorts his own words to demonstrate it. He openly disavows Nazism.)
I won't claim to know much about Vlaams Blok in Belgium, as their current status post-dates my job covering Western Europe, though banning them from political participation would smack of a "Politically Correct" mistake, no?
I realize I am overly prolific, and I hope I haven't annoyed anyone. I submit this for your consideration and insight, and I thank you.
# posted by 
: 6/26/2005 06:22:00 PM
: 6/26/2005 06:22:00 PM
Thanks for the comments.
Your question... is racism in the United States powerful and pervasive, but simply dormant?
An interesting question. However, I don't think it is one that need be asked. I DO think racism is as much a thing of the past as it is going to be here in the US. Of course, there is no way to ever get rid of it totally, I'd imagine.
One thing, however, we will still probably have to look out for situational racism (as I like to call it). For instance, watch how so many suddenly hate muslims in this day of a war on terror when few gave them much thought before. Also, wait until we start having the inevitable conflict with the commies in China! THEN you will REALLY see race hate whipped up. The yellow menace will be back as the watch word of the day. And, again, it will be all of a sudden. We haven't had much racism against oriental races since Nam, and even then it was not as bad as WWII or the Gold Rush days of 1849.
But, these are only temporary hatreds that stem more from war fever than real, long term race hatred.
Next question... has political correctness paradoxically rendered America less able to combat the racism that still exists than countries in Europe, who at least allow racists to organize openly and run for office in official parties?
I don't think so because even allowing them to be part of the system legitimizes them and gives them a ready access to power when that situational racism comes into play. If you knock them out of the system, however, you serve two purposes. 1) makes it harder for that view point to come into power when that situation occurs, 2) serves to reiterate that the racist attitude is wrong and improper.
Next... Moreover, they are largely powerless in their respective Parliaments.
Ah, but it just takes that one spark and there they are. Legitimate and ready to assume power.
Last... I realize I am overly prolific, and I hope I haven't annoyed anyone. I submit this for your consideration and insight, and I thank you
No problem at all. Feel free to visit and comment any time at all.
Yours, Warner Todd Huston
Post a Comment
Your question... is racism in the United States powerful and pervasive, but simply dormant?
An interesting question. However, I don't think it is one that need be asked. I DO think racism is as much a thing of the past as it is going to be here in the US. Of course, there is no way to ever get rid of it totally, I'd imagine.
One thing, however, we will still probably have to look out for situational racism (as I like to call it). For instance, watch how so many suddenly hate muslims in this day of a war on terror when few gave them much thought before. Also, wait until we start having the inevitable conflict with the commies in China! THEN you will REALLY see race hate whipped up. The yellow menace will be back as the watch word of the day. And, again, it will be all of a sudden. We haven't had much racism against oriental races since Nam, and even then it was not as bad as WWII or the Gold Rush days of 1849.
But, these are only temporary hatreds that stem more from war fever than real, long term race hatred.
Next question... has political correctness paradoxically rendered America less able to combat the racism that still exists than countries in Europe, who at least allow racists to organize openly and run for office in official parties?
I don't think so because even allowing them to be part of the system legitimizes them and gives them a ready access to power when that situational racism comes into play. If you knock them out of the system, however, you serve two purposes. 1) makes it harder for that view point to come into power when that situation occurs, 2) serves to reiterate that the racist attitude is wrong and improper.
Next... Moreover, they are largely powerless in their respective Parliaments.
Ah, but it just takes that one spark and there they are. Legitimate and ready to assume power.
Last... I realize I am overly prolific, and I hope I haven't annoyed anyone. I submit this for your consideration and insight, and I thank you
No problem at all. Feel free to visit and comment any time at all.
Yours, Warner Todd Huston
# posted by : 6/27/2005 07:03:00 PM
: 6/27/2005 07:03:00 PM << Home
|
