We often hear tales of discrimination against blacks, and these tales are invariably used to justify the current anti-white status-quo. Whether the incident makes news headlines or whether it was just a minor personal experience, they tend to accumulate within the public psyche and maintain the perception that “racism is out there” and that it is pervasive.
Of course, some of those “racist incidents” had nothing to do with racism at all. Blacks are not immune from encountering jerks or those who have had a bad day. But they are more likely to attribute them to racism (partly because this is what they are trained to expect) while the rest of us simply assume the culprit is having a bad day or has mental issues. But this post is not about those imaginary incidents of discrimination*. It is about real cases, where whites really do treat blacks differently and in a negative way – where whites yell “nigger” out the car window when passing a black on the street, or when whites really do avoid hiring blacks for a job or renting to them. I think it is important to distinguish between the various motives behind such behavior and not lump them all together as one monolithic “racism” – though government, the MSM, the education system and big business prefer to avoid such distinctions.
1) Innate fear of other races. Jared Taylor writes:
Pre-school children show racial preferences even when they have not been taught anything about race or had any experience with people of other races. An Australian study of four- and five-year-olds found that white children preferred to play with white dolls. They would not play with an Aboriginal doll; one child even said “It’s yuck, yucky. Put it back.” White children would not accept an Asian doll, either, with one saying it “could not be Australian.” It could be argued that these children simply picked up the unconscious prejudices of their parents, but it is also possible that their reactions reflect innate preferences…
Steven Neuberg of Arizona State University has also done experiments that suggest instinctive bias, which he, too, attributes to evolution during our long, hunter-gatherer past. “By nature, people are group-living animals—a strategy that enhances individual survival and leads to what we might call a ‘tribal psychology’,” he says. “It was adaptive for our ancestors to be attuned to those outside the group who posed threats such as to physical security, health or economic resources, and to respond to these different kinds of threats in ways tailored to have a good chance of reducing them.”
2) A preference for one’s own race that was learned from one’s parents and other elders. This is the type of discrimination that we are supposed to believe is the norm. It is the one most accurately termed “prejudice”. But would it also not be prejudice to disregard the opinions of one’s parents and elders without looking into them thoroughly? The typical story we are told involves a young person from the South who was taught negative things about blacks. Later, when he grows up, he meets a black man (or has his life saved by one) and it dawns on him that what he was taught was all wrong. If his parents had taught him that all blacks are evil, then yes, he was taught wrong and his parents were sabotaging their own credibility. The fact is that most people are of average intelligence or less, so lessons tend to get dumbed down. The more accurate lesson of “be wary of blacks because they tend to be more criminal and less trustworthy, but realize that there are good and bad in every group” gets dumbed down to “blacks are criminals and untrustworthy”. Such blanket statements, and attitudes, are bound to be exposed as false as soon as the child grows up and experiences the real world.
3) A distaste for blacks due to bad experiences with them. Given the huge amount of black on white crime, it is surprising this type of discrimination is not more common. Of course, the MSM works overtime to dilute our own personal experiences with their own positive messages about blacks and other non-whites. But it should be no wonder if a woman, who was mugged by blacks, raped by blacks and verbally abused by blacks, has negative feelings toward blacks and then translates those feelings into action when she can. Though such actions are not always justified, they are human nature. Society would do well to address the root cause of such animosity, rather than the symptoms. In other words: address the problem of black on white crime.
4) Resentment due to preferential treatment for blacks at one’s own expense. No matter where we go, or what we do, in America today (and Europe), we cannot escape anti-white bias. It is in the news, at school, at work, in movies, billboards and at the doctor’s office. Due to this bias, many whites are denied access to higher education (at least to the schools they hoped to attend). Their job opportunities are curtailed. They miss out on raises and they cannot get away with the same sort of conduct that non-whites engage in; doing so would get them fired. They cannot agitate for their own people without acquiring a social stigma or worse. When every institution, that has any measure of power over our lives, conspires to oppress whites as a group, we should not be surprised when some whites choose to even the score whenever they can.
5) A desire to maintain a white majority in one’s own traditionally white homeland. Since, for most of us, taking up arms against the ever-increasing tide of non-white immigration is not practical, another way to combat the invasion is to make life as uncomfortable for the invaders as possible. Society at large calls this attitude “xenophobia” – but would Native Americans have been “xenophobic” had they opposed white settlement of their homelands through various raids and trade sanctions? Population replacement policies, such as those pursued by governments in historically white lands, are clearly genocidal. They are not acceptable and each individual has a duty wage his own personal battle in whatever little ways he can. Of course, most American blacks did not migrate here by choice – so this motive would only apply to recent immigrants.
6) A desire to maintain the value of one’s own home and to defend his neighborhood against encroaching crime. This, of course, goes hand in hand with defending his own family. When large numbers of blacks move into a neighborhood, crime almost always increases. So it is not hard to understand why a homeowner would avoid renting, or selling, to blacks if this will upset the current ethnic character of his neighborhood.
7) Fear of lawsuits or ethnic tension in the workplace. We are constantly told that “diversity is our strength” but the reality is that ethnic diversity is a great weakness. It is expensive, often awkward, dangerous and corrosive to trust. A common culture and language is a great strength to any enterprise and a business owner who values this may well avoid hiring those of different backgrounds; he wishes to maintain the cultural integrity of his business. Many business owners have discovered that firing an out-of-control black employee can be costly. The employee may avenge his dismissal with a discrimination lawsuit. Better to avoid this altogether and avoid hiring blacks.
8) In some positions, the employee may have to interact with the public. If the business is in a predominantly black area, then it might make sense to hire a black for the position. After all, people prefer to do business with those who look like themselves. But what if the business is in a mostly white area? Might it not make sense to hire a white person? What if the employee must speak to customers on the phone but his ghetto accent might turn business away? Might it not make sense to hire somebody who customers can both understand and better relate to? Sometimes physical beauty is important for the position. White women are usually considered more attractive than black women. This is why black men so often prefer white women. In fact, given the chance, most men on Earth would prefer a white woman over one of his own race. So it should be no wonder if a white woman is preferred for such a position.
9) The person in question may not trust blacks, for certain positions, because he is familiar with HBD. He may have made a conscious decision to keep his workforce white (or Asian) because, by his calculations, the risks are much less for him this way. One wonders how many basketball teams consciously recruit black players for much the same reason. Where are the protests over that?
10) He may simply dislike black mannerisms, appearance, smell or tastes in music. Even if he holds no animosity toward them, has never suffered from them and has no rational reason for avoiding them, his own personal tastes may lead him to keep them out of his workplace.
11) Some people, including some whites, are bullies by nature. They will find a reason to pick on others if they can. Sometimes, the trigger will be the victim’s short stature, or the fact that he is bald or obese. Other times it might be that the victim is of a different race than the bully. There is no rhyme or reason for such thuggery – but if the bully is white, and the victim black, the powers that be interpret this as “racism”. So yes, there is discrimination in these cases, but it is merely discrimination of convenience; the bully was looking for an excuse to leap into action and he found one. I would include those who act out due to mental issues in this same category. The mentally unstable person might lash out at the slightest provocation. It is not unusual even for the anti-white establishment to recognize this type of behavior as distinct from standard “racism”.
We may each draw our own conclusions, regarding each type of discrimination listed above (and some I may have missed), as to whether it is reasonable, justified, repugnant or criminal. We may each also decide if eliminating them would be a worthy goal – but to do so would certainly require an understanding of their root causes. Lumping them all together as “racism” and “evil” will not do much to advance this goal. Personally, I see nothing wrong with discrimination, as long as it does not trample the rights of others.
*When I use the term “discrimination” in this sense, I mean it in its neutral sense; it is not a value judgment.
