Amanda writes:

I write as a child of an interracial marriage. My mother is white and my father is black. I know that my father and mother’s marriage is based upon love, not conquest. Both of them faced personal challenges and family relations were strained when they wed in the mid 1970s. Despite these difficulties, my parents pursued their love and have lived a life together that I both respect and admire.

Is their marriage functional? In a word, yes. My parents have been wed for thirty-three years. They have faced personal joys, tragedies and all of the bumps of the road of life. Despite all of this, they have remained faithfully married, no mean feat in today’s society. I look around in my circle of friends and acquaintances and I cannot point to more than a handful of unmixed couples who can claim the same. Is their marriage perfect? Of course not. We are all sinners. However, they seemed to have weathered the past thirty plus years better than a good number of their unmixed counterparts.

Are my siblings and I confused about our identities? No more than any American growing up in this turbulent time. In fact, I would claim that we are significantly less confused than normal, owing to our parents’ frank discussions with us. In contrast, our friends, who came from unmixed marriages, almost without exception, faced identity crises that resulted in teen pregnancies, drug problems, criminal activity, mental illness, and suicide. My siblings and I have not only avoided all such negative symptoms of identity crisis, but have gone on to successful lives. I myself recently married and I am completing a Ph.D., my sister is engaged and is working as a psychology assistant in a medical facility, and my brother is a successful contractor.

Have we contemplated our mixed heritage? Yes, we have. However, our contemplation was an opportunity to learn more about our own histories. Never have I regretted who I am or where I have come from. I can confidently say, as a grown woman, that the lessons I learned from both of my parents will serve me throughout my life. And the greatest lesson they taught me was love.

I realize, in a way, that I am speaking to a group of people that has already made up its collective mind about this issue. I realize that revealing my own racial background provides an easy reason to dismiss my objections. I can easily imagine a reader saying, “Well, of course she’d say that. She doesn’t know better.” Perhaps, if that person were kind they might pity me. If they were unkind, they might be repulsed by me. However, I recognize that I cannot control the thoughts and feelings of the readers. I can simply present the facts as I see them, and offer myself and my family as a case study. I recognize that my testimony will be but one drop of love in a bucket of well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided racism. However, I speak to you, not because I believe that I can change your mind, but because I pray that one day God will change your heart. I pray that He will use me and my thoughts to His end.

                                                                                           —— End of Initial Entry —- 

 

Laura writes:

I thank Amanda for sharing her experience. Like Laura H., she has illustrated a point I made much earlier: The atmosphere in a home, the love of parents and siblings, and the character of the individuals involved are all primary in forming psychological identity. I urge Amanda to go back and read the discussion with Laura H. in the post, The View from One Interracial Marriage, where I elaborate on this point. I also urge her to read the recent post, Love and Race, Spirit and Matter, and then reconsider her assertion that this discussion has been a blanket condemnation of interracial marriage. Even M., who expressed a strong aversion to interracial marriage, spoke of the conflicts he wrestled with over the issue.

A number of opinions have been expressed. There is no collective mind here, but a variety of views and an effort to come to understand an institution that has been historically problematic and continues to be problematic today. Amanda has found only close-mindedness and racism, no genuine effort at inquiry or open exchange of ideas.

I assume Amanda considers all her many forebears who did not support interracial marriage with embarrassment and even contempt. What were their thoughts? Were they hateful racists? I suspect they were not guilty of hatred so much, as respect for the inherent differences between cultures and races. We may be much more enlightened than they in terms of the very real limitations of this view and I have no doubt that the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws has allowed some very happy families such as Amanda’s and Laura H.’s to be formed. I also think that the instinctive opposition many men in this discussion have expressed will never go away. It is a fact of human nature and a reflection of the inborn drive to preserve one’s own.

 M. writes:

Amanda seems like a perfectly nice person who had a good upbringing and is happy with her parents and her life. That’s great. It’s a reminder that we should not fall into the error of thinking that every interracial pairing will result in an unhappy or broken home and confused, resentful children. As has been mentioned, there are interracial marriages of people who seem to have been made for one another and on a spiritual level it is hard to see how one could object to that. 

On first finishing Amanda’s post, I asked myself the question I have asked myself many times: are my feelings on these racial issues and the survival and well-being of my people wrong? Am I wasting valuable life energy and time on something that is a low and unworthy matter? I know I feel angry about the direction things are headed, but should I ignore that and accept the end of the ethnic identity of my people, and almost certainly the end of the cultural, historical, and social world that we built around and for ourselves? 

And then I ask, but for what? There is nothing in the bargain here for my people as a people that could offset what we’re being asked to give up.

 We have what is, put simply, one of the greatest civilizations in history. We’ve worked out a way to be big and strong enough that we need fear no military invasion from any army on earth. How many peoples in history could claim that? We’re extraordinarily prosperous and inventive, having discovered and created more things for improving the material quality of life than all the other peoples on earth combined, by far. We don’t wink at corruption or accept tyranny; our streets are safe and clean and our homes neatly kept. We have a great balance of creative energy and freedom from conformity combined with enough self-discipline and work ethic to bring our creations to fruition. Our philosophical, political, scientific, and artistic innovations are unmatched. And speaking as a man, our women seem to be the envy of the world since women around the world take steps to lighten their skin and straighten their hair to look like them. 

So we’ve had a really great thing going here. Really great. 

And I have not heard a convincing argument put forth yet that things will be as good for me and my people in the multiracial, multcultural West that white liberals have pushed us towards. They hold up the promise of new exotic foods and music and vague “different cultural perspectives” as the reward for giving up our nations and our ethnic identity, but all you have to do is look at the places in our country where non-whites have settled to see the reality of what happens to us. Our streets and schools are renamed for black or hispanic leaders and the quality of instruction is dumbed down. The neighborhoods become unsafe. “Dead white men,” our beloved ancestors who built this society for us, are scorned, demonized, and dismissed as irrelevant. Our children are taught in school that people of other races and cultures are “authentic” and that their racial and cultural identities are to be valued and respected, while it is “dangerous” for white children to value their identity as white westerners. (For a perfect illustration of this, see the video “A Conversation About Race,” where the interviewer asks a young white woman why blacks are so over-represented in professional basketball. She answers that it’s because they’re just better at it than white people. Then he asks if there are things white people are just better at than black people, and she becomes uncomfortable and has no answer. She has been taught it is racist and wrong to think of whites as having any good traits as whites.)

 I think a good analogy is the American Indians. Were their lives improved by an influx of racial and cultural diversity? Are the cultural and technological benefits they gained from the massive influx of whites, inarguably much much greater than whites have to gain from non-whites, worth what they lost? Do you think, as I do, that American Indians can make a strong case that they had and have a right to want to maintain their identity as a people, and that that requires an intact, distinct American Indian race as well?

 So when I look at what we’re being asked to give up, I don’t see the benefit of it. All the liberals can truly offer us is a feeling of virtue for having sacrificed ourselves for a higher goal of universal brotherhood. That sounds pretty noble, all right, I’ll give you that. But the brutal realities of what that would actually mean for us in practice, in my opinion, make me doubt whether that goal is really that noble. Does God really want us to be reduced to that? Does God want to see white people lose their identity as a people while celebrating the uniqueness of all the other peoples on earth? There’s also an implicit suggestion that non-whites can’t really live up to their full potential in their own homelands, that they have to be allowed to emigrate here in order to give them a chance at a meaningful life. That is a terrifically condescending attitude. And of course there is the repulsive liberal suggestion that our lives as white people are bland, stunted, boring, and lack meaning if we only live among white people.

 The truth is that we don’t all need to live in the same nation in order to have rich lives or to enjoy the cultural and technological fruits of other peoples. That’s what trade, tourism, the media, and cultural exchanges are for.

 We’re being asked to give up too much for too little.

 As for Amanda, God bless her and keep her. But the truth is that whether Amanda’s parents were happy or whether every interracial couple is happy is irrelevant to the discussion white people need to explicitly have about whether we really want to give up what our ancestors gave us. Amanda’s mother made the choice to step away from us and throw in her lot with another people. I’m glad that worked out for her; the world needs more happiness. But quite frankly, speaking as a white man concerned about the future of his people, Amanda really doesn’t have much to say to me that is relevant on this, anymore than white people have much to say to black people or latinos or any other people about their concerns as a people. I don’t expect Amanda to think of my concerns as anything more than “well-intentioned, but misguided racism.” How could she? She’s not one of my people, and I suppose it always seems like “racism” to a non-white person when a white person talks approvingly of whiteness. I can’t help that and I don’t need to.

Mrs. E. writes:

Laura wrote: I also think that the instinctive opposition many men in this discussion have expressed will never go away. It is a fact of human nature and a reflection of the inborn drive to preserve one’s own.

It’s important to keep in mind, though, that “human nature” consists of many driving passions that are in opposition to godliness. Selfishness, jealously, impatience, pride, greed, etc. are all part of human nature. It is important to evaluate our “inborn drives” and determine if they are “driving” us away from the Lord’s will for us. And it’s crucial to make sure we are not deceiving ourselves and masking sin by saying, “Well, this feeling inside me is never going to go away, so it must be a good thing, and I should indulge in it.” We are not animals, and need not be ruled by our inborn drives. This is why Christ came, to free us from bondage to our sinful passions. Just because a drive is inborn does not mean it should be cultivated.On the contrary, often they should be cast aside with God’s help.

Laura writes:

How would Mrs. E. propose to do away with the competitive sexuality of men, which often operates on an unconscious plane, other than by banning interracial marriage?

Terry writes:

I was quite intrigued by M’s comments as it related to Amanda’s “inability” to relate to what he is concerned about. The things he attributed to Western culture as being unique to white people took me back. 

He used the example of houses neatly-kept. As a black American who lives in a neatly-kept house (many people of various races have entered our house and said, “You have a lovely home”), I can’t help but wonder why Western ideals are being held up as uniquely white.  America is and always has been a nation of immigrants. I have no problem admitting that much of the society we appreciate today is the result of European influence. But America’s culture is not without contribution from various ethnic groups. Black people have contributed to the American way of life. Some through intellect (think George Washington Carver or Dr. Charles Drew) and some through the forced free labor that made it possible for much of the south to be built and industrialized. 

I agree with M. that people can prosper and flourish in their native countries. They don’t necessarily have to emigrate to the US to do that. They simply need to rise to the occasion and take hold of the life they want, much the same way the colonial people did when establishing this country. 

As the days of slavery ended, the majority of black people did whatever they needed to do to assimiliate themselves into the larger culture. The first American woman self-made millionaire, of any race, named Madame CJ Walker. She got rich developing products to help black women straighten their hair. To this day, the majority of black women, myself included, have chemically straightened hair. Black men of my father’s generation (my dad’s almost 80), worked hard, took care of their families, paid their taxes, and went to church just like the average white man. 

It was in fact, and I’ve said this before, white racist politicians, wearing the disguise of benefactors, ushered in the age of what you see before you. The culture of welfare, victimhood, and illegitimacy rolled full steam ahead as a result of government leaders. Just as the emasculation of white men was their own fault, so too many of the curses of the current culture were introduced by a few men hungry for power and control. 

Now I can appreciate on some level, that it is more comfortable for any family when every one marries within their ethnicity of origin. I still disagree that it’s wrong to discourage it purely for racial reasons, but I have no expectation of changing any minds here. My problem is with the assertion by the white male commenters here that white people are better simply because they are white. I have been in the homes of white people that can’t hold a candle to my own. If the only way you can love your own is to belittle others, that doesn’t speak well of your ability to promote your “own people.” I still have a problem with that notion as a whole, but I’m going with it for the sake of the dialogue. 

You love yourself and our country. Great. I love this country too, and the fact that my skin is darker than yours doesn’t taint my patriotism and the fact that I’m God-focused rather than race-focused (and yes, the two are mutually exclusive) doesn’t mean I don’t “get” what you’re trying to say.

Laura writes:

I don’t think the male commenters were saying white people are “better” because they are white, but that white culture is better because it is their culture. In this case, “better” means mine. Americans view America as better than other countries; Germans view Germany as better. This does not prevent cordiality and esteem for others.

Terry’s comment that white racists instituted welfare and encouraged black illegitimacy in order to gain power takes my breath away. This is characteristic of the anti-white sentiment that has caused the commenters here to so passionately defend their own culture at the risk of offending people such as Amanda and Laura H. This is a charge of extreme evil on the part of whites against blacks. These white men Terry speaks of have deliberately destroyed black homes to gain power. Blacks were forced by conniving whites to abandon marriage and take their livelihood from the government.

 Terry questions why it is necessary to belittle other cultures in order to love one’s own. It’s a good question and it should be turned to those who have engaged in the vilification of whites as morally deficient and conniving. In the same way Jews were demonized as power-hungry and in league to take over the world, whites are demonized as by nature  oppressive, greedy, soulless, prudish, selfish, and plotting. Whites are by no means guiltless, but this view is incomplete. A people are first stripped of their moral  legitimacy. Then they are stripped of their possessions. Finally, they are asked for their lives.

Joel writes:

The functional definition of “Dead White Men:” The goal of multiculturalists for all white men.

Bartholomew writes:

First, I would like to thank the lady of this blog for hosting a civil and uncommonly forthright discussion of an awkward topic. It is an awkward topic, to say the least, because it is personal, but more precisely, because some people interpret it as a discussion of personal worth or unworth.  We see this in the comments of the racial egalitarians, if I may for convenience’s sake, assign them a category that I think they themselves would use (please correct me if I’m wrong). Let’s look at a few of their statements:

Amanda: I recognize that my testimony will be but one drop of love in a bucket of well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided racism. However, I speak to you, not because I believe that I can change your mind, but because I pray that one day God will change your heart.

Terry: Further, and I am not speaking of you specifically Laura, but the sick and ungodly self-importance I read in the tone of some of the male commenters is frankly funny if it weren’t so tragic

Terry: It hit me that you and many of your commenters view me, a black woman, as inferior to you. I am embarrassed that it took me so long to see it, frankly, but it seems that the word “culture” is in effect code for “we are better than them and we shouldn’t ruin our superior white race” by intermarrying with them…I am attempting to convince carnal people of spiritual truths…I pray for everyone who thinks they are of God as they are actively subverting His word by elevating the fleshly above the spiritual.

Now, I’ve looked, and I’ve been hard-pressed to find too many statements from the racial realists, if I may assign them a category that I think they themselves would use (please correct me if I’m wrong), that implied inherent unworthiness in any particular race. In fact, although I thought I remembered one commenter’s saying something to the effect of black men are “worthless” I can’t find it or anything similar now. Most of the racial realist commentators have emphatically stated their belief in the common humanity of all the races of mankind.

Sheila: I also reject Mrs. E.’s assertion that defense of my own race and acknowledgment of racial differences automatically determines my actions towards others. While I have decided to draw the line at marriage and future descendants, Mrs. E. seems to compare this to a refusal to recognize other races as human beings – not so.

Laura W: Since blacks are equal in moral worth to whites, we owe them the highest respect by granting them moral responsibility for their actions.

I think it’s only decent of the racial egalitarians to acknowledge this.

Second, I have a few questions of my own to ask the racial egalitarians:

1. Why does the existence of race imply the extinction of humanity rather than simply another aspect/layer of it? Why do you understand the existence of race to be a threat to the existence of a common humanity? Do you understand any other differences among humans as a similar threat to our common humanity, e.g. differences in sex, age, class/social function, family, language group, cultural group, etc.? Why not?

2. In the Garden of Eden there was no race, only Adam and Eve. In the Garden of Eden, there was also no family, only Adam and Eve. We see that family was God’s way of structuring out-of-the-Garden reproduction. How and why do you see race differently? Rather, is it possible that race is also simply a larger, God-ordained, out-of-the-Garden structure for reproduction?

And I’d ask more specifically,

3.  Is there any way that whites may recognize the existence of their own race or any other without embracing white supremacy?

4.  Is there any way that whites act to preserve the existence of their own race or any other without oppressing other races?

Finally, I’d just like to say this about myself. I am a white man who grew up in the inner-city around blacks and whites. I go to an integrated church and live in an integrated neighborhood. There’s a difference between myself and the black men in my church, and I and they can sense it. Also, I am single, unfortunately :). Looking around at the women in my church and neighborhood, I just don’t see any black women I’m attracted to (I’ve been attracted to some of the white women, but I won’t marry any of them for cultural and/or religious reasons, which has me contemplating attending a suburban white church, but that’s a different discussion). Not all white men and especially not all white women agree, evidently judging from the number of interracial couples, but hey, I’m still here too.

I like my church. In many ways, our church services are very white, reflecting the founding population of the church, but other social activities are very black. I notice that blacks are less engaged in the worship, unfortunately, and whites tend to be less engaged in the social activities, but withal, we get along pretty well. And though we aren’t the deepest of friends, I care about everyone in my church a lot. We do a lot for each other inside and outside of church, and it’s good. We don’t talk about race openly, but we know what it means. The black men at church respect my boundaries, and I respect theirs.

What I am trying to get at is the fact that since this is becoming America, why can’t we all do the same? Why can’t we just respect one another’s boundaries?

We, whites, blacks and, thanks to treasonous left-wing immigration policies, just about every other race of man, are in the same country. Maybe that won’t last, I don’t know. But it’s here, now. And the best way I know to deal with that is not the racial egalitarians’ way. I’d have myself in needless, self-accusatory knots of guilt and self-hatred if I thought race existed but shouldn’t matter in, for instance, selecting a mate. I couldn’t explain my lack of attraction to the black women around me except by indicting myself for the worst kind of sin, the hatred of sisters in Christ! What would I do? Marry a black woman whom I did not love to prove myself “anti-racist”? By whose definition is that wise, let alone good? But by what other than race can I explain the lack of attraction? And if I thought race “shouldn’t matter” but it did to me anyway, well then who’s fault would that be? I’d probably end up one of those guilty white liberals.

And if I acknowledge the importance of race but denied culture, what would I do? Would I similarly declare it OK to go ahead and marry one of the ghetto white women whom I am sexually attracted to? What would I do, how would I explain the results when she left me a year later for another man? Or worse a few years later after we’d had children? How could I account for the innumerable, real and consequential differences in practices and beliefs between us? I couldn’t, leaving me once again to blame myself and examine myself for “what I could’ve done differently.” Perhaps, I could say she had sinned, as Terry suggests, but then what? How could I make sense of the strong correlation between sin and a particular culture, namely that of the inner-city?

No, the best way to deal with multi-racial, multi-cultural reality is to believe in the existence of multiple races and multiple cultures. And to the extent that those multiple races and multiple cultures influence and determine reality, one must account for the significance of racial differences and the significance of cultural differences. Whatever this is, this way I have found to make living in my multiracial, multicultural church and neighborhood work, it is not white supremacy, and I would appreciate it if the racial egalitarians would quit calling it that.

Terry writes:

Laura, you have put words in my mouth. I never said that white politicians deliberately set out to destroy black homes. What I said, and I stand by it, is that these politicians, in their quest for power and control, instituted the welfare state. And many anti-family rules were written into the very fabric of these laws. For instance, an unmarried mother could receive benefits thatan intact family could not. 

Like all liberals, these men probably weren’t deliberately trying to destroy the black family. The simple fact of the matter that the guideline for receiving benefits tilted the likelihood of receiving benefits to the average black person since their wages were significantly lower. 

Blacks, to our shame, but not unlike every other human being on the planet, chose the path of least resisitance and took the “free” handouts. The abandonment of marriage was a disastrous choice, to be sure, but it was indeed our sinful choice to reject God’s plan for stable families and communities. 

The same thing is happening in America today, but on a much larger scale. People of all races, clamoring for health care, college tuition, day care subsidies, and mortgage help are falling into the same trap that the black community succumbed to because they still don’t understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch. 

What you fail to understand, Laura, is that my belief that these poilticians, who made these decisions, did so for power, and they just happened to BE white. My commentary was much more anti-government than it was anti-white. I harbor the same disgust for race hucksters such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who use their political platform and savvy to prey on the weak and ignorant who have been indoctrinated by our shameful government schools. I shun all liberals, of all stripes, equally.

Bartholomew writes:

I wondered if you think the following is true:

The question really boils down to a simple one: Do we accept the body as meaningful or don’t we?

Which aspects of the body we debate and their respective meanings, those are good and necessary discussions. But we aren’t likely to get far with any of them–be they about sex, race, age, weight, and so on–if we don’t think the body itself has any meaning.

I wondered about this after Terry said something to the effect that racial realists are “elevating worldly concerns over heavenly ones.” It seemed like she and Rita too think that our spirit alone is meaningful and worth caring about. But maybe I’m reading too much into her words.

Laura writes:

This is a great insight and yes, I think the race issue is very much affected by the spiritual status, or lack of status, granted the body. Is the body purely an instrument for the soul or is it intrinsically meaningful? If it is intrinsically meaningful then things that may seem insignificant or of no usefulness, such as the color of our skin or the fact that a woman has monthly periods or is capable of conceiving at certain times, mean something and deserve recognition.

Contempt for the body and deification of spirit lies behind so may issues in the culture war, such as sexual liberation and abortion, and is obviously relevant to this issue too. A great book on the subject is Body-Self Dualism by Robert George and Patrick Lee. Interestingly, their arguments are not applied to race but could be. This instrumental view of the body, as a thing opposed to spirit, is one of the major Christian heresies of our time.

Mrs. E. writes:

You ask how I would rid men of this trait? Well, maybe it is not a trait that can be gotten rid of. For example, the male desire for sex is not something that can be eliminated. But it can be brought under control with God’s help and used in the proper setting (marriage). Men of any race who are prone to pursuing “trophy wives” (of any race) need to get over themselves and enter marriage with the proper mindset: to love and protect the woman, and to make sacrifices for her.

Now at the same time, I think we need to acknowledge that women of all races have minds of their own. Any woman is quite capable of either encouraging or discouraging a suitor. If a black man pursues a white woman, and she accepts his attentions and marries him, I don’t see any cause for white men to become upset. She made a choice of her own free will, and rather than getting angry, I think white men can find better ways to use their time and energy. In my opinion, white male hostility over this is misplaced, and I feel this goes for any male of any race.

And as a woman, I almost feel offended by this hostility. Are women so weak that they can’t make their own choices? Are they so stupid that they need male hostility or laws against interracial marriages to protect them? Now, I am very traditional, and I do believe in getting the counsel of parents, pastor, etc. before marrying. It is fitting and appropriate for these people to have an influence in such big decisions. But the guy on the street who “disapproves” has no grounds for doing so. I don’t see that it should concern non-family members.

Van Wijk writes:

M. said: I don’t expect Amanda to think of my concerns as anything more than “well-intentioned, but misguided racism.” How could she? She’s not one of my people, and I suppose it always seems like “racism” to a non-white person when a white person talks approvingly of whiteness. I can’t help that and I don’t need to.

My thoughts exactly. The sun does not rise and set on what black people think. The opinions of non-whites on white survival can be very illuminating, but they are ultimately irrelevant. Similarly, the white woman who gives birth to black children has permanently forfeited the right to influence the course of our people.

Terry wrote: America is and always has been a nation of immigrants. I have no problem admitting that much of the society we appreciate today is the result of European influence.

I am extremely grateful to Terry for making this statement. She has shown us once again what we see when we scratch the surface of a black “conservative:” leftist revisionism. Since all nations have benefited from and been influenced by immigration in some way, every nation on the earth is a “nation of immigrants,” and so this much-bandied liberal platitude is shown to be meaningless. America is a nation of colonists, specific people from a specific part of the world who carved a new country for themselves out of a wilderness. Immigrants come when the country is already on its feet, else they cannot be called immigrants. In fact, the term “nation of immigrants” is simply the latest in a long list of terms designed to wrest legitimacy from white people in their own lands.

A few years ago during Pacific Islander History Month (or something), someone at work asked me if there should be a European History Month. He knew a little of my politics, so I surprised him when I said that no, there should not. I explained that these Group X History Months were established to honor those people who made some contribution to what the United States currently is. European people did not make a contribution to the United States; they invented the United States. Equal credit goes equally to all groups in liberal fantasies only. It is not a reflection of reality.

The simple fact is that America did not rise to such unheard-of prominence because wildly foreign people from across the globe flocked here and added their spice to the melting pot. Is it coincidence that whites were almost totally dominant during America’s meteoric rise? Caucasians did just fine for centuries without worshiping the idol of Diversity. We can do so again. I think non-whites sense this truth on some deep level, and it frightens them.

Terry writes: It was in fact, and I’ve said this before, white racist politicians, wearing the disguise of benefactors, ushered in the age of what you see before you.

I wonder if Terry sees any correlation between the out-of-proportion black criminality in the United States and the hellish nightmare of violence that is most of the African continent.

Sheila C. writes: 

Both Laura and Van Wyck responded to some of Terry’s comments that equally offended me. I, too, was struck by her insistence that it was white politicians, seeking power, who destroyed the black family. No, actually, it was liberal politicians seeking to assuage their racial guilt and demonstrate their compassion who instituted modern welfare. I don’t see the connection with power there; surely if they wanted some sort of control over the black family (or the implication of control over black fertility) they would have instituted birth control regulations along with all the other eligibility requirements. Even today, many still insist that to require anyone to work or provide a service or conform to behavioral standards in order to receive public charity is somehow to demean them or destroy their innate human dignity. Thus the near universal condemnation of the Victorian era workhouse (I adore “A Christmas Carol” but really, Dickens was espousing fairly radical social policies for his time) and the convenient denigration of Paul’s declaration that those who do not work will not eat (yes, I know he was referring to people who wanted to sit back and await Christ’s return, but the meaning here is the same). Life outside the Garden of Eden is a constant struggle for survival, as God said it would be. That we modern Americans are generally spared that struggle, due to the sacrifice and innovation and damned hard work of our forebearers, is a gift to be celebrated and appreciated, not guiltily justified against the rest of the world’s poverty. I think we have here a classic illustration of the difference between conservative, traditional Christianity (charity from a softened heart is the work of God on an individual, not collectively) and the newer “leftist evangelical” belief that the Gospels dictate governmental and social policies to implement their interpretation of Christian love and charity. It’s the difference between free will and compulsion, and I would argue there can be no dispute where the Bible stands on this issue.

Yes, Terry does finally admit that blacks flocked to accept the government handouts and the conditions that accompanied them, but feels compelled to add that whites of all classes also accept government assistance. The fact that far too many Americans have their hands in the honey jar is to be deplored, but I think it’s quite a stretch to equate college loans to aid to single mothers having multiple children by multiple men. I know I’ve read in some Thomas Sowell book that while the black family was better off or progressing economically more rapidly before 1960s welfare, there was still a much higher rate of illegitimacy and broken families than in white America across all social classes. I will presume Terry will bring up the old chestnut about slavery eternally hindering black family formation, but accepting a handout does not automatically ensure rampant promiscuity. Again, that more lower class whites are emulating blacks is no justification for black family disarray in the first place. I say again, we have free will and personal responsibility for our choices. This is both Christian doctrine and, until recently, was the foundation of American prosperity and the “protestant work ethic.”

Let me add an illustrative personal anecdote in support of my continued argument that race and culture are inextricably related. During my consular tour in a Caribbean nation I spent some months in the anti-fraud/U.S. citizen services side, during which time I accompanied my boss on a number of prison visits. The Americans we visited were almost exclusively black, and had almost all been arrested for drug trafficking. I remember my astonishment (and I was still very much a liberal) at how little difference there was between these black Americans in their speech and behavior and family background and the local people, and how huge a gulf separated me and these other “Americans.” I specifically remember one particular woman who needed me to contact a family member at home to get her welfare or aid card of some sort to her thirteen year old daughter, who was expecting a baby. It took a few tries for her to explain the situation in a manner I could comprehend, and all I could think of was all the local “baby mothers” I saw in the visa lines every day. No, illegitimacy and welfare dependency are not a purely racial trait; one can find many races and nationalities in the same, sorry circumstances, but in this case there was nothing I could identify as specifically “American” about this woman. It wasn’t merely economic and moral poverty I was seeing; there was no independence of spirit, no entrepreneurial zeal, no drive to excel, or be different, or achieve. I shouldn’t have to add that yes, people of every nation and in every age have demonstrated this at one point or another, but only the American nation was founded and initially populated almost exclusively by this type of person, and these behavioral standards have historically been a white, Euroopean trait. To repeat Laura’s assertion, if the Chinese (even Chinese Americans) had established America, it would be a far different country. In the parts of America today where black politicians and residents are the majority, there exists a far different society, with its own culture and rules. Even across class lines, most black Americans claim to be bilingual. This may be intended as a joke, but when relaxing with family or other black friends, they speak and behave in a very different manner than they do in white society. If this is acceptable to Terry, if one being more comfortable with members of one’s own family or extended race is a good or at least normal thing, why is it not equally acceptable for whites?

P.W. writes:

Interracial relationships/marriages have a much higher rate of failure, divorce, and estrangement, even during this age in which close to half of all marriages end in divorce. Also, history shows that widespread race mixing leads to the degeneration of cultures, nations, and empires. Just look at India, North Africa, Central Asia, Brazil, Mexico, Latin America in general, etc…all of those areas are extensively mixed racially and all of them are very chaotic, unstable, even ‘backward’ places. 

Governor/Senator Bilbo had the right idea — in his 1947 book Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization. He wrote: “Our Nation is now standing at the crossroads, and we must choose between a white or mongrel America of the future. …There are but two roads – separation or mongrelization – and we must take our choice.”