|
Black History Month: Quid Pro No?
by Victor Wolzek
February 07, 2002
Government fiat has demanded Americans recognize Black history, in various ways, annually since 1926 (originally as "Negro History Week"). Yet, as an apolitical adolescent in high school in the late '80s, it was common to hear White friends and classmates, as well as various family members and neighbors, asking half-sarcastically, "Black history month? Why isn't there a White history month?" It didn't seem like it was taken very seriously or that anyone perceived it to be a dangerously slippery political slope.
But the question was only half sarcastic. Doubt about the legitimacy and real purpose of celebrating black history was definitely in the air. Outspoken skeptics would dodge charges of racism by merely alluding to the sad paltriness of black history (no wheel; no written language; peanut butter as a crowning achievement) while claiming that assimilation was the goal and American history was what mattered for all American citizens, regardless of ethnicity.
The opposition was savvy. Rather than reject the goal of assimilation, it made "gateway" arguments for radical diversity: Black leaders, Jewish media, and guilt-stricken White liberals -- with eyes gouged like Oedipus, intentionally blinded to the truth -- screamed:
"Every month is White history month!"
"Celebrating black history is a supplement to, not a replacement of, American history!"
"Knowledge of black history enriches all Americans!"
Et cetera, et cetera... As has become ritual, whining blacks and the Jews that manage them got their way. Black history month, with its comical "tributes" and utterly forgettable "remembrances," was begrudgingly accepted. In other words, it was, as we say today, tolerated.
Ridiculous as it now seems, this once politically naïve, racially sheltered, White adolescent kid was actually for black history month at the time. I was a child of blue-collar parents who were too busy working and too determined to afford and prepare their children for opportunities they never had -- i.e., a coveted college education, regardless of major, and its rite of passage into white-collar America -- to preach racist politics. They raised me to work hard, respect others, and to value education above all else. They wanted their children to "make something of themselves in the world" and were far too humble to imagine radical racist politics leading to anything but trouble. In retrospect I've learned (happily) that they were against the wrong-headed, so-called civil rights movement. But aside from supporting various far-right groups to the extent their limited means would allow, they were too entrenched in their blue-collar workaday existence to do much more.
Consequently, for most of my life I was intentionally protected from the taboo realm of White racial activism. I went to college, majored in the decidedly unprofitable field of philosophy, earned a Master's degree, and leveraged this education to enter corporate America at a managerial level. The folks were proud.
But whereas the political sheltering helped push me along through higher education, the education itself -- not the Jew-approved content so much as the analytical tools -- afforded me the eyes to see the outrageously hypocritical, anti-White political agenda pumped out by presidents, mainstream reporters, opportunist activist groups like the ADL, and all forms of media entertainment.
Now that I have the eyes to see, am I to infer from the old-school, politicized pseudo-logic of "every month is white history month" that today, in the inaugural months of 2002, all non-explicitly pro-Black, pro-Jewish, or pro-Mexican events are "pro-White"? If this was the case in the past, it certainly isn't the case now. Therefore, if it was inappropriate to ask for such events in the past because it suggested an inflated or obsessive focus on one's race (because it was presumed the legitimacy and righteousness of your heritage was already in full bloom and all around you), it certainly should not be deemed inappropriate today.
The difference is so clear that those who latch on to the old arguments against pro-White events, and even pro-White verbiage, are either stupid, inobservant or brainwashed by the Propasphere. Though the last is usually the case, it's often a mixture of all three.
And many do maintain the old arguments and should be held suspect. As unbelievable as it may be, many still do argue that no change has occurred in racial relations. They argue that Whites "as a group" are still the majority and therefore, in principle, are unable to be oppressed. There are several obvious rejoinders to their argument. First, the claim that Whites are the majority is simply not true. Whites make up a mere 8% of the world population today, compared to the 33% in 1900. Second, the White minority ruled and supposedly oppressed the South African blacks until recently -- so it's quite clear that racial minorities can -- do -- oppress majorities. It must be recognized, therefore, that it is individual White men and women who are denied a constitutional privilege all other individuals and collectives of "color" (both legal citizens and illegal aliens) are allowed. It is individual White people, White American citizens, who are either formally or informally prevented from celebrating their heritage as do, e.g., their black, mexican, and jewish friends, neighbors, co-workers, and loved ones.
While Whites are expected to support and join the celebration of other cultures, they are denied even isolated, private, let alone public, celebration of their own. While it is assumed Whites -- at least the "decent, thoroughly multicultural" ones -- appreciate and wish to celebrate all cultures, it is not assumed that other cultures appreciate or wish to celebrate White culture. In fact, they are formally, politically, and personally expected to despise it. They are expected to believe against all obvious facts that White culture has done nothing but abuse and oppress non-Whites, when it has in fact provided the only stage and legal freedoms the world has ever known allowing diverse cultures to celebrate themselves.
What does this say to well-intentioned White folks about our Black, Mexican, and Jewish friends, neighbors, co-workers, and loved ones? Why don't they relish the diversity of our White culture the way we do theirs? Why don't they wish to reciprocate the courtesy of collective celebration? One would expect Whites to find this double standard troublesome; and when free to discuss issues openly among themselves, it is clear that they do. The real question, however, is why don't non-Whites find this troublesome? Whites fall all over themselves championing the virtues of non-White cultures. Why are non-White cultures so quick to cringe and criticize and cry ethnocentrism or even racism when Whites celebrate the virtues and heritage of their culture? Why does the multicultural quid pro quo become quid pro no when the culture in question is White?
Are our non-White friendships and loves and neighborly gestures a ruse? Do these individuals whom we know personally really share a collective resentment against us individually as "Whites," that is, as a group? Does a singular demographic lump of animosity and spite reside beneath the many and various relationships non-Whites seem to participate in with Whites?
If the answer to these questions is no, than what's the problem? Why the disparity in cultural respect? Why the inequality? Why is it even an issue? Why is the Jewish ADL and JDL, as well as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and even La Raza Unida (Mexico's "The United Race" activist group) sure to descend upon any event, speaker, book, whatever, brazen enough to feature "Whiteness" in a way that is not self-deprecating? Bill Clinton doesn't discourage Black pride or Jewishness, or any other minority celebrations. In fact he has publicly expressed joy that due to our open immigration policies Whites will -- it's a demographic fact, not an ideological conjecture -- become a minority in America in the next four or five decades. Jessie Helms may have a problem with modern art, but he doesn't suggest Blacks or Jews ought to be barred from creating or displaying art. Even the unfairly maligned political pariah David Duke doesn't argue that Black or Jewish leaders ought to be silenced, or that their races ought to be extinguished. He just wants the right to speak, and for his arguments to be fairly addressed and judged on their merits, and for the White race to be respected and preserved.
If the answer is yes, if multiculturalism will make no room for White culture and is intent on shouldering aside Whites into extinction, then the jig is up.
VICTOR WOLZEK
|