BUCK writes:

Jay from Goshen argues in this post that progressive policies and politics didn’t destroy Detroit, but that blacks did. Or, as I extend it, that modern liberal policies and politics, implemented by a ruling white majority, aren’t destroying our civilization, “others” are.

Three years ago, there was a discussion at VFR, kicked-off by a discussion between Bonald and Alan Roebuck at Throne and Altar. They debated which threat to us was greater: liberalism or Islam. Mr. Roebuck brought the discussion to VFR. He stuck to his guns and eventually secured the agreement of Lawrence Auster. Others of us, as did Bonald, argued that modern liberalism is the supreme threat. I’m more convinced than ever, that it is the threat of all threats – that modern liberalism spawns the others. No secondary threat exists without it. None of the dangers that were taken lightly and dismissed when I was a child would have fully or ever partially manifested into the social and cultural game changers that they are, and that I believe are irreversible without a full blown revolution. The “threats” have all been codified into law, and even more profoundly, they have been firmly embedded into our youth. Without the insidious nature of modern liberalism, it’s everyday power over each and every one of us, we would not be having these conversations.

It’s true that black dysfunction destroyed Detroit. But, blacks could not have done it on their own. Black (and white) drug lords and kingpins, the biggest and most successful drug empires in U.S. history, filled Mr. Roebuck’s vacuum, a vacuum that could only be created by modern liberal policies and politics – the ruling authority that first crippled, then destroyed Detroit. Unions sucked the air out of the auto industry, then liberalism sucked out the whites and then the middle class. Modern liberalism did not rule Detroit when it was the economic powerhouse of America. But, when fully implemented in the early 60s, within one decade, the largest and most successful black middle class in American history, was replaced by the largest and most successful heroin and crack cocaine enterprise in the world, as Detroit also became the murder capital of the world.

Laura writes:

Welfare policies that rewarded illegitimacy were not created by blacks. They were created by white liberals and they played a big part in Detroit’s decline. So I agree with Buck. While black dysfunction was a factor it was not the ultimate cause of Detroit’s downfall.

— Comments —

Jay writes:

My disagreement with both you and Buck is so profound, and my time right now so limited, that I will just have to leave this for the present.

There are many societies that have had intrusive governments, liberal governments, rotten, nosey and confiscatory governments — but their societies have not ended up in such a degraded state as Detroit, and its ghetto archipelago across the country – and the world, where ever blacks congregate in huge numbers.

I can’t think of a more liberal place than Scandinavia. Is Norway Detroit?

Laura writes:

But we both said black dysfunction was a factor too.

Alex writes:

It works like this at the city level, as well as state level to a lesser extent: when Democrats win an election, they rush through all kinds of liberal policies that make life intolerable for Republican voters, i.e. whites and the middle class. So intolerable that enough of them leave before the next election rather than waiting for it to fix things. After enough productive people have left, Dems cement their position by driving out more and more of them with new taxes, business regulations, condoning black criminality and the like. After a couple election cycles, when enough whites have left and black population has reached a critical mass, permanent Dem power is assured. If white Dems keep control of the party, some resemblance of normal function remains. If there are so many blacks that there hasn’t been a white mayor in decades, you have Detroit.

So it’s liberal policies that set in motion the process that creates a black hole like Detroit. But for this to work as intended, there needs to be a significant initial population of those whom the wealth-redistribution policies will benefit (at least initially) and who will become the Dems’ troops in driving out the productive classes – i.e. blacks.

So, in the U.S., both liberalism and blacks are required to create Detroit. But blacks without liberalism are certainly enough, too. Africa is one big Detroit, and always will be.

Bill R. writes:

I must agree with Jay on this one. Laura writes that “we both said black dysfunction was a factor too.” It’s more than a factor. You have it the other way around. Liberalism is what may be a “factor” (at best) in creating Detroit. Liberalism is bad enough in its own way but it doesn’t create Detroits. As Jay points out, if it did, you’d have Detroits in Norway and you don’t. Liberalism creates San Francisos, not Detroits. And, again, San Francisco is bad enough and decadent enough and hostile enough to Western traditions in its own way, but it is not bad in the way that Detroit is bad. Liberalism exacerbates the problem of black dysfunction that creates places like Detroit; liberalism allows black dysfunction to flourish, it pampers it, subsidizes it, blames it on “white racism,” makes endless other excuses for it, etc., but it does not create it and it is not responsible for it. Black dysfunction creates Detroit and blacks and blacks alone are responsible for that. If the percentage of the black population is high enough in a city you’ll end up with Detroit, liberalism or not.

 Laura writes:

Remember we’re talking about what destroyed Detroit? In other words, what led it from its former state of a prosperous city that was mostly white to one in which blacks predominate? Whites would not have fled to the degree that they did if not for liberal policies that failed to protect neighborhoods and demonized reasonable segregation of the races.

Buck writes:

I’m short on time too. But, quickly:

Bill R. makes my point, again: “liberalism allows black dysfunction to flourish, it pampers it, subsidizes it, blames it on ‘white racism,’ makes endless other excuses for it, etc.,” Exactly. Thank you. Blacks don’t get to take over cities unless there is a power vacuum. Unless it’s VACATED by whites and handed to them. The only way that there is a power vacuum, is if whites leave. We know that they don’t have the civilizational skills necessary to the demands of running a great city. Or, are we giving blacks credit for taking something from us that we actually wanted to keep? That’s absurd. Whites are still in authority, but our mutual problem is that it is modern liberal whites are in power, not us.

Bill R. writes:

Your point is well taken, Laura, and I agree with it as far as it goes. Liberalism without question makes it far more difficult for whites to protect themselves from black dysfunction and/or to discipline the excesses of such dysfunction. Thus the only recourse liberalism leaves whites with is that of fleeing, essentially (which obviously accelerates the downfall of a city since it raises its percentage of blacks). Thus I allowed that liberalism was a factor in the destruction of Detroit, but the fundamental cause was too many blacks. It’s true that but for liberalism Detroit would not have ended up with such a fatal percentage of blacks, but it’s still that high percentage of blacks that was the cause of its destruction, not liberalism per se. For example, if you plant liberalism in a place, like Norway, where the temptation for liberalism to coddle the social pathology of a significant black population simply does not exist, you don’t have any Detroits. Look at Britain too. She marched immediately and full-on into socialism at the end of World War II. Yet even today she still has no city that can compare to the predator-infested wasteland that is Detroit. Thus, it’s liberalism that is the factor in Detroit’s demise, but blacks that are the cause of it. My only point is to reverse your heirarchy; you say black dysfunction is a factor in Detroit’s destruction with liberalism the cause; I say black dysfunction is the cause, liberalism a factor. If you have a city 80- or 90% black it will become another Detroit, period, whether the whites were chased out because they were hamstung by liberalism or because whites were never there to begin with. So liberalism will only ever be at most a factor in the destruction of a city like Detroit, never the fundamental cause. Liberalism may be the fundamental cause of other kinds of destruction, even vastly more far-reaching kinds like the destruction of an entire civilization, but not the Detroit kind of destruction.

Hannon writes:

What destroyed Detroit was the combination of a localized black majority in a white-run liberal society, a superb dynamic for ruin. Thus white Scandinavia’s liberalism is relatively benign (until their imported Muslim populations reach critical levels) and populations in Africa are able to maintain a native functionality based on their traditions while not approaching the levels of hell seen in Detroit. All of which demonstrates that, outside of city centers perhaps, racial or ethnic mixing that is more than nominal will not end well. One group will always be running things and the other will be resentful, or worse. It is a lesson in natural order that is completely lost on modern liberals and they are in power. This makes them the greater threat for us than Islam.

Laura writes:

Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had two weeks ago with a woman who grew up in South Africa in the 1960s. Her family owned a large farm and employed many blacks, who lived on the property with their families, totaling about 100 people in all. She said they never feared for their safety or had problems with violence or theft. When the minimum wage law was enacted, they were forced to let most of the workers go. Most of them went to Johannesburg or other cities, which are now filled with crime. And of course many white farmers and their families have since been murdered and most of the farms taken from whites are failing.

Buck writes:

As far as Norway being anything like Detroit, of course not. Norway has a tiny population. Five million people living in a country that overlayed on America, would stretch from Maine to the Gulf of Mexico, pretty much covering all of our original thirteen colonies; which had a population of 2.4 million. America reached 5.3 million in 1800, and 900,000 of those were slaves. So, no, Norway is nothing like Detroit. Norway is nothing like any part of America or any major industrialized nation. They have a 23,000 strong military, which includes civilians. It’s has only 60 percent of the population of New York City. So resource rich and easy to manage is Norway, that they’re piling up surplus money from the sale of the state owned petro and natural gas. They have the least densely populated country in the Europe. In 2012, net immigration was a record high 47,300. About 62 percent of the immigrants were European citizens. Norway is barely on the world’s radar.

They have the highest per capita and most equal income distribution in the world. Somewhat like the large, happy, prosperous and content middle class in Detroit in 1950, which included 300,000 equally prosperous, contented, and well ordered blacks. There were intact families, fathers and mothers and children being educated. How did these dysfunctional black people form wholesome families and live legitimate middle class lives, in middle class houses with nice cars and TVs, just like the whites in the other neighborhoods? How did that happen? A freak occurrence?

Modern liberalism had not yet taken over and worked its magic.

I’m not arguing that black dysfunction and the repeatedly demonstrated lack of civilization skills by black countries, and a consistent and persistent lower measure of IQ does not exist. I agree that black populations, left to their own devices, without leadership have never achieved anything approaching the civilizational achievements of the ten percent white minority that created Western Civilization. That does not mean that blacks are incapable of learning and doing and following, if lead honestly with expectations rather than manipulated or coddled by liberals.

It was not the prosperous 300,000 middle class blacks in Detroit in 1950 that pulled the plug on their own prosperity. White men ran Detroit, ran the auto industry, ran the federal, state and city governments. White liberals activated and animated the “progressive” programs and policies that devastated Detroit.

A Grateful Reader writes:

Washington, D.C. must be close to eighty percent black, but it remains a comfortable city. The majority of the blacks in D.C. came from the south. (Although that might be changing with the influx of Chicago people following the president.) There are many well-educated and wealthy blacks in the city who go to church and respect their neighbors.

I would suggest that the significant difference between the black communities in Detroit and D.C. is the Godlessness of the former and the modicum of Christianity in the latter. D.C. is certainty not Christendom, but it has enough vestiges to hold civilization together, at least for a little longer.

James Kalb has an excellent article at Crisis Magazine. He answers the question: “Why does it seem that orderly, prosperous, and well-run societies are usually less religious, but the less religious a society becomes the more disorderly it gets?”

 Laura writes:

Washington and Detroit have entirely different economies. When the auto industry failed in Detroit, those who could hold the city together left. Government jobs keep the Washington economy relatively stable and help support a sizable middle class black population. Washington is part of a larger metropolitan region that is heavily white and whites run the major cultural institutions and federal government. And of course the city itself has major problems with corruption, crime, squalor and government dependency. Some of its neighborhoods are not so comfortable. That’s not to discount the role of observant, Christian blacks (though I’m not sure they are more numerous in Washington than in Detroit), but it is safe to say they could not keep an advanced major city like Washington functioning on their own.

Buck writes:

After 50 years, Washington D.C. is once again a majority white city. Its population peaked in 1950, and dropped dramatically as a result of white flight. It was then a terrific small Southern city. That has slowly reversed. After losing population every decade since 1950, Washington DC is now gaining population as whites are moving back in and repairing chunks of what can be a beautiful city.

Bill R. writes:

In reply to Buck: Paul Kersey in his book Escape from Detroit assembled quite a few interesting facts and figures of his own and they led him to the contrary conclusion and the one I agree with, that blacks, not liberalism, destroyed Detroit. (I highly recommend the book although Mr. Kersey badly needs an editor.) Norway is just an example. The same principle holds true of the rest of Scandinavia, Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Russian, etc., etc. — for that matter, Japan, China, Korea, too, you name it, wherever whites or at least Asians are and blacks aren’t, the politics don’t matter, Detroits don’t happen.

On the other hand, Africa, in spite of what Hannon says, has hells even deepen than those in Detroit if that’s possible. On that account I suggest the following recent article at American Renaissance by Marian Evans, Africa in Chaos, a book review of Paul Theroux’s The Last Train to Zona Verde: My Ultimate African Safari. All liberalism to blame in Africa too, Buck? Then why doesn’t Russian, after 70 years of Communism and 25 of political basket case and Russian mafia, look anything like Africa? Or Detroit. Not even the beginnings, not even a hint, not anywhere in Russia!

Three hundred thousand “prosperous, contented, and well-ordered blacks” you say? Yet 17 years later that city was the location of one of the worst race riots in this country’s history and which finally participated the utterly sane and rational white abandonment of the city. What happened in those 17 years, Buck? All the rest of the country with the same liberalism dominating its major cities went through the same 17 years. What prevented the period ending in race riots for them? That must have been one hell of an attack of liberalism that decided to focus like sunlight through a magnifying glass all on poor, little, old, well-ordered Detroit all those 17 years and leave the rest of the country’s cities alone! And then to have it all come crashing down in one hellish night of fire and smoke and retribution against “racist” white police and in spite of the impressive bulwark of all those hundreds of thousands of “prosperous, contented, well-ordered blacks.” Where were they that hot August night in Detroit in 1967, Buck, those 300,000 prosperous, contented, well-ordered blacks? All transformed by liberalism in just 17 years from prosperous, contented, well-ordered blacks into thuggish, savage rioters and arsonists?

And what about Pittsburgh? How has modern liberalism “not yet taken over and worked its magic” there? They’ve been dominated by liberalism like Detroit, and also like Detroit, lost their major industry too, steel. Why didn’t they erupt in riots in 1967 — or 68 or 69 or any other year since then? What happened, Buck? What was the difference? Liberalism? It’s been in Pittsburgh as much as it’s been in Detroit. You know what hasn’t been in Pittsburgh? That’s right, blacks — 26.1% for Pittsburgh as of 2010, 82.1% for Detroit as of 2010. If liberalism destroyed Detroit and all those blacks were really so well behaved and just needed a little nudge, a little leadership, then what did it do — liberalism, I mean — just up and fall asleep on the rest of the country? Talk about absurd! If liberalism really had fallen asleep on the rest of the country we’d have cause to celebrate right now, wouldn’t we? And what else but liberalism falling asleep on the rest of the country, if your thesis is correct, could have prevented all those other cities in America from rioting when Detroit did, and going through all the rest of the hell that Detroit’s gone through since then, or worse since none of those other cities had Detroit’s advantage of 300,000 prosperous, contented, well-ordered blacks?

Those race riots in Detroit in 1967 marked the beginning of Detroit’s downfall (although as Kersey says, the city’s fate was really sealed when the Supreme Court rule restrictive covenants unconstitutional in 1948). Seven years later (1974), Coleman Young, their first black mayor was elected, and Detroit’s downfall was made a veritable institution of the city government, which it has remained to this day. Remember that figure, 82.1%. That is your answer to what destroyed Detroit. It also happens, by the way, to be almost exactly the same percentage that is destroying in very nearly the exact same way another place that also once had hundreds of thousands of prosperous, contented, well-ordered citizens, except that these were not black but white — South Africa. For anyone tempted to think it was again just more liberalism to blame there too I recommend Ilana Mercer’s Into The Cannibal’s Pot. You’ll recognize Detroit’s pot in there too if you’re not already determined not to.

 Laura writes:

“The politics don’t matter.” Surely, you don’t mean this. What has led to the disastrously low birthrate in Europe, so low that millions of Muslim immigrants have been welcomed with open arms? Liberal stupidity, with laws and attitudes that have enabled whites to commit their own form of genocide. Sure, these places are not Detroit, but they have their own burgeoning Detroits as a result of liberalism. Think of the recent riots in Trappe, France.

You write:

On the other hand, Africa, in spite of what Hannon says, has hells even deepen than those in Detroit if that’s possible. On that account I suggest the following recent article at American Renaissance by Marian Evans, Africa in Chaos, a book review of Paul Theroux’s The Last Train to Zona Verde: My Ultimate African Safari. All liberalism to blame in Africa too, Buck?

But that’s not what Buck is saying. He is not saying that wherever there is black dysfunction, liberalism is to blame. He is saying that if not for liberalism, black dysfunction would not have be so overwhelming in Detroit. Imagine, for instance, if there had been racial segregation in Detroit and whites could have remained living there safely and economically. Things would be quite different.

Your point about Russia is not relevant because Buck does not deny that race is an important factor. In much of your comment, you insist that he is saying that liberalism was everything and race negligible.

SMK writes:

In regard to the state of Detroit: How are “white racism” and the welfare state and modern liberalism to blame for the hellish state of Haiti and post-colonial Africa? Or pre-colonial Africa? If the black population of Detroit was replaced by Japanese or Koreans, or Germans and Norwegians, Detroit would be transformed into the best large city in America with the lowest rates of crime and violence rather than remain the worst large city in American and the “second most dangerous,” with or without a welfare system and “liberal permissiveness.” The fundamental problem with Detroit and New Orleans and the South Side of Chicago and Haiti and Brazil and Africa is the inherent nature of blacks, particularly their low average intelligence and disposition toward violence and criminality and other pathologies, which is exacerbated in some ways and alleviated in others by welfare and liberalism.

Laura writes:

Yes, Detroit would not have been the same with any of those populations. But given the fact that it was inhabited by a large percentage of blacks, the belief in radical equality made its problems much worse.

Teresa writes:

Having been born in Detroit, living my young years in Detroit, and now in its close environs; what destroyed Detroit is white flight long before liberalism was extant.

The late 40s already saw many whites flee to new brand new slapped-together ‘suburbs.’ The GI Bill played a large part in this, as returning GI’s garnered the education to move away to the neighborhoods, all white ones I may add, to places out-of-reach of the blacks. By 1960, only the far from downtown neighborhoods, those on the fringes of those new tract suburbs contained the only whites left … and, they were gone in a flash.

Racism runs deep in this city and always has. Come the 1967 riot and busing (which sealed the deal), those whites that were left couldn’t get out fast enough. Twenty years of Coleman Young shut the door to the city, and it became the doughnut in the sprawling megalopolis that is Metro Detroit.

Good factory jobs spawned by the auto industry and all its allied necessary vendors (management to the factory floor) made individual home-ownership the creation of Detroit, the envy of the rest of the Nation. Those jobs provided an easy exit out-of-the-city.

White Detroiters had/have too much money, too much opportunity, they paved the way to the American Dream of some idyllic life of never knowing your neighbor, let alone caring about them, never caring any longer for the arts, having a second home Up-North, a boat, four cars (one for every person in the household) their two children went to college … and, all was well in Alice in Wonderland.

Quite frankly, I don’t ascribe this to liberalism, but to the materialistic Judaic mindset pervading everything we know, which spawned the politically correct term liberalism. That’s my take on it, as politically incorrect as that may be.

Laura writes:

I’m not sure what is “Judaic” about the materialism of the whites you describe, who were mostly Christians or lapsed Christians but not Jews. A materialistic mentality, which didn’t come from Jews but from the inclinations of these white Christians, was harmful in all kinds of ways. For one, it prevented whites from having many children. So, yes, that was a factor. But San Francisco is a very materialistic city. So is New York, but it is functioning well enough.

Detroit would have been very different if there had been no suburbs to flee too. It wouldn’t have become a black run city. But it wasn’t “racist” for whites to want to live separately. If it’s racist to admit your children are in danger then racism is good. My husband grew up in the city of Chester, Pennsylvania, which went through the same process. First some whites left for the idyll of the suburbs, but then many who didn’t want to leave fled for their lives. One night, a father of eight children was killed walking to the rectory from the parish hall, carrying the bingo receipts. The local school crossing guard was beaten within an inch of her life by a man who broke into her apartment. Whites fled for their lives and their safety, and liberalism, or the belief in radical equality, prevented them from instituting any reasonable form of segregation. Or I suppose they did institute informal segregation by leaving and giving up their homes. They now sometimes get together outside the city to marvel over the loss of their hometown. Chester finally became the mini-version of Detroit it is today. It would never have become a wreck if it hadn’t become majority black. So yes, I agree, with Bill and SMK who say black dysfunction is decisive, but it occurred in a context in which it was impossible to acknowledge the limitations of blacks.

Laura adds:

Teresa wrote:

Racism runs deep in this city and always has.

It lies so deep that it is hidden beneath an infrastructure of laws that discriminate against whites. It lies so deep that whites risk losing their jobs and livelihoods if they voice opinions such as have been expressed in this discussion while blacks can openly express contempt for whites. It lies so deep that whites are frequently assaulted by blacks and yet never publicly and collectively denounce the violence against them. It lies so deep that many of the charities that help those in Detroit are funded or run by whites. That is very deeply hidden racism. If that is racial hatred then whites are always guilty, everywhere and always. They are so guilty they might as well go off on their own and live separately because if after all this they stand convicted of hatred then they are constitutionally unable to do nonwhites any good.

By  saying all this, I do not mean to suggest I am resentful of blacks. I am resentful of those who ascribe their failings or limitations to whites. Despite the wickedness and savagery of a minority of blacks, blacks as a group are not responsible for this state of affairs. White liberals have given them a degree of power they cannot reasonably exercise.

Buck writes:

I wish that I had the time to parse Bill R.’s comments. I’m packing to leave for five days. It’ll have to smolder.

I still say that he, like many others, is missing the forest for the trees. I doubt that anyone will persuade them otherwise. It is what it is.

Bill has called me out by name repeatedly, as if I personally set his hair on fire. He makes claims from my assertions that I don’t make, and connects them to things unsaid. It will take time, which I don’t have, to put his disparate thoughts in order.

What “caused” the well-ordered black middle class, then “caused” the well ordered black middle class to turn around and set its own house on fire? Second thoughts? Or, did the new hundreds of thousands of blacks that poured into Detroit chasing the new welfare state, after the downfall, play a role?

I don’t get that Bill does not get what he himself so clearly says: “Those race riots in Detroit in 1967 marked the beginning of Detroit’s downfall (although as Kersey says, the city’s fate was really sealed when the Supreme Court rule restrictive covenants unconstitutional in 1948).” Setting aside the specious claim that the riots “marked the beginning of Detroit’s downfall,” which makes no sense, since the riots were obviously the result of Detroit’s downfall; that Bill asserts that this claim is true, and yet misses the essence of his own claim – that our modern liberal Supreme Court (modern liberalism) forced an association on people who had historically been free to limit their association – that the courts now force it on us as one of the cornerstones of modern liberalism.

Ian M. writes:

My father grew up in Detroit.  He has always maintained that what initiated Detroit’s decline – or at least what made it first noticeable – was the construction of the federal interstate system beginning in the 1950’s.  The interstate system in Detroit is quite good:  it is very easy to get into Detroit quickly from the surrounding suburbs.  But this is the very thing that permitted the white middle class to move out of Detroit and yet still commute into the city for work.  It is much easier to get into downtown Detroit from the suburbs than it is in say, New York, Boston, or Chicago.

Along with whites voluntarily moving out of the city, eminent domain was also a factor.  I recall my father saying that at the church he attended growing up (which is also the one I attended growing up) in Detroit’s west side, a hundred families from that church were forced to move because of the interstate construction.  This was not a particularly large church in the first place, so for a hundred families to leave was devastating.  The church never really recovered from that.  It struggled through for several more decades until it was sold to Muslims about ten years ago and became a mosque.

That said, I think Detroit could have still been reasonably functional if that had been the whole story.  But it’s not the whole story.  In my view, while I think it’s true that black dysfunction is what has destroyed Detroit, liberalism is what first actualized and then exacerbated this dysfunction.  Had whites not abrogated their moral authority, particularly in sexual matters, and had liberals not encouraged welfare dependency, blacks could be doing a lot better, and Detroit would not be in quite as bad shape as it is, though perhaps still not capable of maintaining its peak from the 1940’s and 1950’s.  Moreover, whites would not have felt as much of an urgent need to leave the city from the 1960’s onward.  Instead, we now have the The Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press writing about “black flight,” the phenomenon where black middle class families are fleeing Detroit for the suburbs.

Bill R. writes:

Laura writes, “In much of your comment, you insist that he is saying that liberalism was everything and race negligible.” Well, perhaps that’s been part of the problem; that is, as I’ve proceeded with this debate and reflected on what’s been said it’s been less and less clear to me exactly what Buck was trying to say. By that I mean, specifically to what degree he was apportioning blame. I have perceived he has, so to speak, been holding a set of scales, with black dysfunction on one side and liberalism on the other and it has seemed to me that his scales have been shifting and that he has been giving more weight, especially in his later comments, to the liberalism side of the scales when he remarks, for example, about the 300,000 prosperous blacks, than he was earlier in his initial post when he stated flat out that “black dysfunction destroyed Detroit.” My response therefore has evolved as I have perceived a shift in Buck’s scales. Maybe there really was no shift. Furthermore, where there really may be no great difference in opinion to begin with, which I often suspect is the case in these debates, it is easy to get knotted up in semantics before one even realizes it.  (For me at least.)

What I should have done was stick with what I consider my core point and position, which was articulated in my response to you when I wrote, “My only point is to reverse your hierarchy; you say black dysfunction is a factor in Detroit’s destruction with liberalism the cause; I say black dysfunction is the cause, liberalism a factor.”

I should add that while I think it’s a factor, I don’t think it’s a decisive one. In other things, of course it is, but not in the destruction of Detroit. This, I think, may be the most substantive difference between my position and Buck’s.

Laura writes [quoting Bill R. in the first sentence], “‘The politics don’t matter.’ Surely, you don’t mean this.” I certainly do mean it. But you must be mindful of the context in which I’m saying it. I don’t mean it as a general proposition. You know me better than that. I meant it, I thought obviously, in the context of the subject of the post; what destroyed Detroit? My answer to that has been black dysfunction. It is with regard to black dysfunction, not in any other sense, that I say, politics don’t matter, and they don’t. Black dysfunction exists because of the inherent, genetically determined nature of blacks as a group, not because of any politics. And that dysfunction is more than enough, at 82.1%, to destroy Detroit all by itself just the way it has been, with or without liberalism.

Now, I have acknowledged and I still maintain, as I said to you before quite clearly, that liberalism exacerbated that dysfunction. But it did not create it. And exacerbation is not enough to lay at liberalism’s feet, however much it is to blame for other and even greater disasters, the primary responsibility for the destruction of Detroit, or even a full half of it (which, it would appear, is about where you and Buck are).

Look at the way even you even phrase the role of liberalism, Laura. You write, “Imagine, for instance, if there had been racial segregation in Detroit and whites could have remained living there safely and economically.” I totally agree. But notice how that says nothing about black dysfunction. It is an observation solely about liberalism’s effect on whites. Whether intentionally or not, you, in my opinion, quite properly, leave aside in that statement any notion of liberalism having an effect on black dysfunction itself one way or the other. And that was precisely my point, which I summarized in the phrase, “the politics don’t matter.” In other words, while liberalism may exacerbate various aspects of black dysfunction, particularly where it affects whites, black dysfunction itself will exist whether liberalism is present or not. Black dysfunction is independent of politics because it doesn’t exist in the nature of politics but rather in the nature of blacks. And liberalism’s exacerbation of black dysfunction is not enough, in my opinion, to change the fate of Detroit, although as you wittingly or unwittingly imply, it is enough to change the fate of the whites living in it.

There is a one last question I would like to address before I close and that is this; I have said the politics don’t matter when it comes to black dysfunction and black dysfunction is more than enough by itself to destroy Detroit, but— would it have destroyed Detroit if it hadn’t been for liberalism? This is getting tricky but even at the risk of being accused of self-contradiction (though I would maintain incorrectly for reasons I will show in a moment), I would have to say, no. Detroit would not have been destroyed if it hadn’t been for liberalism.  I said a moment ago that “liberalism’s exacerbation of black dysfunction is not enough, in my opinion, to change the fate of Detroit.”  But its inhibition of a reasonable response by whites is.  Buck is right about one thing when he asks rhetorically, “Are we giving blacks credit for taking something from us that we actually wanted to keep?” But for liberalism, whites would have been in a position, and I believe would in fact have, saved Detroit from black dysfunction. Even Paul Kersey, who unequivocally holds blacks solely responsible for the destruction of Detroit observes, as I noted earlier, that when the Supreme Court struck down restrictive covenants as unconstitutional in 1948 it “sealed Detroit’s fate.” Well, that was obviously liberalism hard at work and Kersey’s clear implication is that but for that liberal action Detroit’s fate had not been sealed. Therefore, it was liberalism that sealed Detroit’s fate, not blacks. So, do Kersey and I contradict ourselves? I don’t think so. And this is why: Saying that liberalism played a huge, decisive, perhaps even the only role in preventing whites from saving Detroit does not mean it played a huge, decisive, or, for that matter, even a minor role in destroying it.

Bill adds:

Bucks writes: “Bill has called me out by name repeatedly, as if I personally set his hair on fire.”

It’s just my familiar style when I get into these spirited exchanges, Buck. It’s not meant as aggression or unfriendliness. If anything, the opposite; I consider most of us who comment on this site kind of like part of a family, with much more that we agree on than disagree on.

Don’t let it smolder. Just let it stew! Have a safe trip.

Laura writes:

Thank you for clarifying that. It’s not always easy to get someone’s tone in written conversation.

You write:

Saying that liberalism played a huge, decisive, perhaps even the only role in preventing whites from saving Detroit does not mean it played a huge, decisive, or, for that matter, even a minor role in destroying it.

Okay, I can agree with that formulation. Leaving aside the forces that led to Detroit becoming 82 percent black, once it reached that point, it was doomed and could not remain a modern, solvent, well-functioning city, and politics could no longer reverse its decline. In other words, politics didn’t matter at that point. I understand your tenacity on this issue. Let there be no illusions about the reality of a black-run city, you are saying. There can be black-run farms and black-run villages and black-run businesses and black-run neighborhoods and black-run families, but there cannot be well-functioning black-run modern American cities with an 82 percent black population, vast bureaucracies and advanced infrastructure that are not hovering on the point of insolvency or chaos — or already destroyed.

To those who find this discussion abhorrent, let me repeat the slogan, diversity is strength. I think most blacks don’t care that blacks lack this advanced collective ability  — but they’ve been conditioned to keep whites on edge and feeling guilty. When blacks had small farms after the Civil War in the South, many were content to live at a subsistence level with one or two crops. They had better things to do than work themselves to death or be enterprising. This is not surprising given that blacks originally came from a region of the world where food was plentiful and it was not as hard to survive as in winter climates. I had a conversation with Paul Kersey once and he said something with which I entirely agree. Once whites reassert their authority, most blacks will probably say, at least to themselves, “What took you so long?”

Bill R. writes:

Thank you, Laura. I regard that as a fine recap of my position. I’ve been thinking I was a bit too hasty in not conceding at least a little more to the corrosive effects of liberalism on the black community. Certainly, for example, black illegitimacy has risen to much higher proportions in recent decades than it used to be and that is certainly the influence of liberalism, not the inherent nature of blacks.

Fascinating about your conversation with Kersey and your comments just prior to that. I’m sure you’re familiar with the book Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred, and Self-Deceit by Gedaliah Braun who lived and taught in several different African countries. He noted that there, blacks are not self-conscious at all about the notion of white intellectual superiority. They acknowledge it readily and it doesn’t bother them at all. If you ask a black in Africa why blacks never make computers or airplanes, he noted, they will say, because they don’t have the brains for it, and it’ll all be a big shrug-of-the-shoulders and “so what?” to them. The acknowledgement seems neither to bother them nor make them feel lesser than whites.

For that matter, I don’t feel any lesser than Asians though I acknowledge that their race has an average IQ that’s higher than my race’s.

I think the overarching problem in all of this is the mixing of the races under the same political jurisdiction. It seems when that happens society ends up with a situation where the disparity between the races engenders in blacks feelings and behaviors that, in combination with their natural tendencies, must inevitably lead to either the coddling of them by white sycophants (and as Braun also says, they’re very savvy at sensing white guilt and taking advantage of it) or the oppressing of them by white supremacists. Since there are many, including myself, who find either approach abhorrent and immoral, separation of the races would seem to be the most stable, enduring, and palatable way to go, at least at this stage in human development.

 Laura writes:

You are over-reaching in trying to come to some overarching point. (It’s over-reaching overarching.) In discussing racial differences, it’s not necessary to come to a solution. We should let truth help us evolve in an organic way.

Hannon writes:

I find it distressing that references to “Africa” in the media generally are used in lieu of reference to the actual country or countries involved. As if the entire continent were monotonous and monocultural, when of course it is very diverse. My reference here to African traditions that are successful relative to Detroit was not based on any particular nation but a few examples might be Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania, Malawi, or Ghana. I was not thinking of South Africa or the Maghreb at all. Despite terrible conflicts between blacks in sub-Saharan Africa as far back as anyone knows they are still largely dependent on local traditions for their ordering principles. Echoes of colonialism still persist, as do relatively modern religions, but their social dysfunctions– from our viewpoint– are their own and seem to be not taxonomically related to the syndromes of U.S. blacks at all. Africans are as interested in order and success as we are, and in Africa they can pursue these goods without the imposition of liberalism by whites or their fellow blacks. When they are aware of the condition of American blacks most are very glad to be in Africa.

Laura writes:

That is a very important point.

Laura writes:

By that, I mean that it is an important point that Africa is not monolithic. However, studies have shown that a large percentage of Africans, when asked, would like to migrate to a predominantly white country. Many Africans envy the condition of American blacks.

Bill R. writes:

I could not disagree with Hannon more. He writes, “When they are aware of the condition of American blacks most are very glad to be in Africa.” With all due respect, it is utterly the opposite. Let me begin by drawing your attention to a book review recently published in The Wall Street Journal of a book called Searching for Zion: The Quest for Home in the African Diaspora by Emily Raboteau. Miss Raboteau appears by all accounts to be, in her political beliefs at least, a rather predictably liberal American black academic (or mixed race, according to the article), convinced, for example, that race is nothing but a social construct. The reviewer describes the book as “the author’s decade-long attempt to discover just where, if anywhere, an African-American might feel at home.” Suffice it to say for the present that her quest turned out to be something of a disappointment. To quote one passage from the article, “Many Ghanaians she speaks with—some of whom appear to still own slaves—concur. Most are incredulous that blacks from the U.S. should wish to come back. At one point a taxi driver mistakes her for a white woman and launches into an unchecked tirade about blacks: ‘These blacks truly expect too much. . . . Don’t they know that if tomorrow a slave ship arrived at Elmina to carry us to America, so many Ghanaians would climb on board that this ship would sink to the bed of the ocean from our weight?'”

That just about says it all and is, from the mouth of an African himself, the very antipode of Hannon’s statement. It’s all the more apropos in that it comes from the mouth of a Ghanaian and Ghana was one of the countries Hannon mentioned as being “successful relative to Detroit.” (Actually, a phrase like “successful relative to Detroit” is arguably meaningless since almost any conceivable social arrangement, including those that existed in the Stone Age, is successful relative to Detroit.)

Hannon says, “Africans are as interested in order and success as we are.” All sane human beings are interested in that, Hannon, especially where the disorder and failure mean one can no longer be reasonably sure even of his own basic physical safety. But that does not mean all racial groups are equally skilled at securing that order and success.

Hannon also reminds us not to oversimplify Africa, that it is not one nation but many. Fair enough. But I question just how “very diverse” sub-Saharan Africa really is (socially speaking, of course). However, if the statement by Miss Raboteau’s Ghanaian taxi driver is not enough, I suggest as I did earlier in this thread the book review at American Renaissance by Marian Evans, Africa in Chaos, on Paul Theroux’s The Last Train to Zona Verde: My Ultimate African Safari.

I think this is a very important issue to get right, not only because Hannon is simply wrong but because his position leaves one with the impression that black dysfunction and social pathology are somehow unique phenomena arising from the combination of blacks and Western Civilization. The only thing unique about them is that black behavior doesn’t become a “social pathology” (a modern phrase from Western Academia meant for modern Western societies) until it’s in a Western society and trying to function in a Western society. For obvious reasons, in Africa one does not see the contrast between black behavior and the behavior of a surrounding non-black population. But you notice it quite well if, like traveler Paul Theoroux, you’re a white man trying to navigate your way through all these “different” Africa countries. I feel so strongly about this I would like to quote here the last five paragraphs of Miss Evans’ review. Bear in mind that at the point at which I pick up the review, Mr. Theroux has, on a previous journey, already traveled (never by plane and always alone) from Cairo to Cape Town and this also was to be a journey spanning the Africa continent but this time heading north along Africa’s Atlantic side from Cape Town to the Sahara Desert. I pick up the review after Paul Theroux has traveled through Namibia and Angola and is now at the latter’s northern border. (The emphases are mine.)

Mr. Theroux is an intrepid and resourceful traveler, who has completed, or nearly completed, all of his previous trips. Not this time. As he approached the northern border of Angola, formed by the Congo River, Mr. Theroux finally decided to abort his journey. First, his credit card had stopped working, and he was running out of cash. He learned later that someone had printed his name and credit card number on a duplicate card, and had run up $48,000 in charges.

Second, he realized that he would see only a variation on what he had already seen: a nightmare world of poisoned and ruined landscapes; impoverished, starving villages; and “cities that were indistinguishable from one another in their squalor and decrepitude.” Traveling any further, “meant traveling into madness.”

 

Third, he decided that he had pushed his luck far enough. As a 70-year-old white man alone in Africa, he was a natural target for thieves and hustlers. There was simply no reason to tempt fate by going on.

He also kept remembering the words of another white Angolan. As they contemplated the reeking, swarming slums of Luanda, this man said, “This is what the world will look like when it ends.” With that doomsday vision seeming all too real, Mr. Theroux decided to head home.

I, too, conclude that the age of white wandering is over. I believe it is high time we return to our homelands and prepare to defend them.