AS the annual observance of African-American History Month comes to a close, it is worth noting one of the most compelling reasons why African-Americans, or blacks, should have their own nation in North America: Blacks view themselves as a separate nation — a nation with its own distinctive history, its own heroes, its own literature, its own folklore, its own popular culture.

There is no Irish-American History Month, Italian-American History Month or German-American History Month. There is no White History Month. The Irish, the Italians and the Germans are not clamoring for these observances. That’s because they do not view themselves as separate to the same extent. They are not a separate nation. Look at the uniformity with which blacks approach politics. Almost all blacks vote the same way. No group in America has such a strong collective identity.

Can Americans ever amicably come to the conclusion that blacks should have their own nation and make this happen in a peaceable way?

One problem with this idea is that blacks, naturally seeking their own security, would likely make stiff demands. Black nationalism seems to necessitate white nationalism. Paradoxically, it is only by defending their own interests that whites could make black nationalism a practicable reality.

— Comments —

Mark Jaws writes:

I am glad people are actually starting to put this concept on the radar screen.  The simple – and by now very obvious – matter is that I blacks and whites see the world in different ways.   Just about every black person on the planet is the product of evolution which took place between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn under climates in which the sea-level temperatures never dipped below 50 degrees – even during the Ice Age.  Caucasians, on the other hand, evolved in temperate and semi-polar climate zones, on the margins of Ice-Age glaciers which made completely different demands on our ancestors.  The differences are many, and they are inherent – and they can be scientifically proven.

There is no equitable solution to manage these differences.  Time for an amicable split.  I would give blacks a contiguous land mass consisting of 10 to 15% of America, and call it quits.   I would support giving them direct aid to build the infrastructure, and once populations have been redistributed and shifted, it would be time to sign the divorce papers.   I would then spend billions in erecting a double border fence, manned by the military, to act as a restraining order.

David J. writes:

Since I am one of the few resident blacks on this blog, allow me to reply to a post concerning the removal of me and my wife from our homeland and the land of our forefathers.

First of all, I painfully understand your desire to rid America of the Negro Problem.  From mall riots to violent crime to welfare dependency to grievance-mongering to ruination of cities, blacks in the aggregate are the most problematic and least desirable people in this country (and probably this solar system).  Even the Great Emancipator himself wanted nothing to do with us in the long run.  In fact, blacks don’t want much to do with themselves as the most intelligence and ambitious of them often abandon their own neighborhoods to follow the coattails of whites into vanilla suburbs, predominately white schools, and white-owned businesses.

Such realizations lead to my second point.  While stricken with relatively low mean intelligence, U.S. blacks are not insane.  As controversial columnist John Derbyshire cogently opined, “[t]he problem with separatism is that blacks would be nuts to want it.  With all the real or imaged indignities of minority status, life is far better for them in a white nation.”  Why do you think blacks clamor incessantly for integration?  For all the rancor from blacks about supposedly undying police brutality and institutionalized racism, where is their separatist movement that has a fraction of the mobilized energy that they readily put into Democratic bloc voting and “Black Lives Matter” and “I Can’t Breathe protests?”  It is relatively infinitesimal.  American Negroes know that they benefit immensely from this majority-white nation.

The above thoughts now direct me to my third point.  The civil rights movement of today is largely a giant scam.  Again, notice that blacks continually complain about the maliciousness of whites on one hand, while they fight like mad to live, study, work, and sleep with whites on the other hand.  From what little I know about the world, this behavior is unique to American Negroes.  What victim group runs towards its oppressor group?  Did Kosovo Albanians feverishly fight to live with Serbs, Arabs with Jews, Jews with Arabs, Northern Irish Protestants with Irish Catholics, black Sudanese with Arabic Sudanese, Confederates with Billy Yanks, Scots with Englishmen, or Armenians with Turks? That blacks expend almost no collective, political power to flee whites in non-recreational activities tells us that their ceaseless grievances are chiefly spurious.

They know that Western whites are exceedingly prone to guilt-tripping, self-doubt, self-examination, self-immolation, and altruism.  If blacks cry “Racism” loud enough or burn a few buildings for good measure, the white man will don his white coat, leap upon his white horse, take on his perpetual white burden, and acquiesce to their demands, regardless of how ridiculous or counterproductive.  Wash, rinse, and repeat for the last fifty years.  As Fred Reed wrote, and I paraphrase, other American groups have to work and study for what they want while blacks need only march and complain.  It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

Now, I make my fourth point.  It would be easier to establish a human colony on the sun than to separate black Americans into their own nation or quasi-nation.  Unlike at the turn of the Twentieth Century, blacks today do not overwhelmingly live in one geographic region like the Old South, but are now also loosely scattered throughout numerous major and minor cities and nearby suburbs from Sea to Shining Sea.  It is difficult to set up a non-contiguous nation (unless with only one or two non-bordering parts like America with Alaska and Hawaii).  In addition to the aforementioned reasons, blacks likely will never be convinced to leave this country voluntarily as America is the only home they’ve ever known (in contrast to many white, Hispanic, or East Asian Americans, some of whom can identify the very cities or villages of their ancestors’ birth in the Old Country).  Heck.  Even during slavery times, when blacks were really being oppressed by whites, free Negro leaders rejected Abraham Lincoln’s initiative to re-colonize them to Central America.  How much more so will blacks of today refuse such a plan?

My last point is more personal.  Genetic expert Razib Khan, methinks, made a remarkable statement with which I fervently agree, and I paraphrase, “I accept no definition of an American that excludes me.”  Indeed, my ethnic group has lived in this country and its colonial antecedent longer than the vast bulk of Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, Germans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Persians, and virtually every other ethnicity save Native Americans and Anglo-Saxons.  With my life, I shall never consent to a plan to sequester us from our American homeland, where our forebears toiled and defended long before the ancestors of other U.S. citizens even thought about coming here.

 Laura writes:

You write:

Since I am one of the few resident blacks on this blog, allow me to reply to a post concerning the removal of me and my wife from our homeland and the land of our forefathers.

I did not mean to suggest the removal of blacks from American soil. I was referring to a black nation in what is now America. I also did not mention “removal,” but an amicable separation. Some blacks have been arguing something similar to this for years. Perhaps blacks as a whole couldn’t be convinced to do this voluntarily, which is strange given the widespread sense of grievance. I don’t know whether they could or could not. Obviously, something like this would take many years to come about.

 You write:

First of all, I painfully understand your desire to rid America of the Negro Problem.

You have, I think, twisted my words. I did not speak of being “rid” of blacks or a Negro Problem. I spoke of the sense blacks have of being part of a separate nation. Of course, many other posts here have suggested that there is indeed a Negro Problem. But I would agree with you that this problem is largely cultural. I don’t see it as a problem of intelligence so much as a problem of immorality, the decay of America in general and a lack of structure. In their own nation, blacks can arguably deal with these problems themselves. All nations have the absolute obligation to recognize God and his one true Church, but each nation arrives at its social and political form organically and works with the strengths and weaknesses of its own people. Organic growth is easier when a people is a people and has a sense of its own identity.

Now, I make my fourth point.  It would be easier to establish a human colony on the sun than to separate black Americans into their own nation or quasi-nation.

So what? What can be brought together can be taken apart. As for your last paragraph, again, I was not speaking of exclusion, but division on American soil.

Perfesser Plum writes:

You say, “Almost all blacks vote the same way. No group in America has such a strong collective identity.”

I agree, and would like to add that the collective (memory, behavior traits, ways of seeing, self-perception) in the identity is primarily one of conflict and self-sustaining otherness—a sense of entitlement to what members of any other group have, infinite victimhood and grievance, injustice, broken English, delusion, arrogance regarding intelligence and street smarts, and pride in violence. Were it not for welfare and gummint jobs, most Blacks would be living like the Ik (Colin Turnbull. The mountain people).

Laura writes:

There’s a positive side to black culture too that involves humor, warmth, athleticism, music, piety and, in some, a love of service and hard work. As one small example, recently I was in an airport in Florida with a relative in a wheelchair and the black man who worked for the airport pushing wheelchairs was just so kind, hard-working and devoted to his job. When blacks are warm, they are really warm. When they are hostile, they are really hostile. The black wheelchair valet in Philadelphia was in the latter category. He radiated anger. It was scary.

Once I knew a Nigerian journalist who came to Philadelphia to work as a visiting journalist. He was the sweetest man you could know. He had this deep warmth that I mentioned above. One day he walked up to a group of blacks standing outside a housing project in South Philadelphia. He was going to do an article about housing projects. Anyway, he says to the men, “Can you tell me about the accommodations?”

They promptly took him to the eleventh floor of the building and beat the hell out of him. I think they resented his innocence and friendliness. Or maybe it was just another opportunity to dominate someone.

David J. writes:

You said, “…a problem of immorality, the decay of America in general and a lack of structure. In their own nation, blacks can arguably deal with these problems themselves…but each nation arrives at its social and political form organically and works with the strengths and weaknesses of its own people.”

Do you really believe this notion as it pertains to blacks? Do you think that blacks will deal with or work out their glaringly collective immorality, ignorance, and criminality if only left to their own devices? Where is the proof? Let’s look at ample empirical evidence instead of theory: Liberia, Nigeria, Jamaica, Haiti, Congo, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Detroit, East St. Louis, northern Philadelphia, Gary, Indiana, ad nauseam. Blacks in such polities have essentially been separated unto themselves, and yet they exhibit the greatest degree of dysfunction across the board! We, as a people, do not (and according to human biodiversity, cannot) solve or deal with our entrenched problems in a moral or positive manner on our own. Virtually every problem simply magnifies after separation. Organic decay, instead of “organic growth,” occurs when this benighted portion of humanity is sequestered. Refer to the extensive writings of Paul Kersey, Steve Sailer, Lawrence Auster, and Jared Taylor.

The reason I mentioned such a strong term as “removal” is because of this very reality. Blacks will never consent to political separation in any sort of amicable way. They know too much about what happens when left alone. Indeed, occasionally you hear a jackleg African-American studies professor at a fourth-rate junior college call for black nationhood, but his or her opinion is atypical. Look at the main currents among Negro Americans: NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, Operation Push, National Action Network, BET, Tom Joyner Morning Show, Tyler Perry’s films. Do they cry for full or even quasi-separation, apart from entertainment choices? It is the subject of jaded quacks, not mainstream blacks.

 Laura writes:

Many of the examples you give are not separate black nations. I don’t think there’s a black paradise anywhere, but obviously there are parts of Africa with reasonable stability. As far as blacks consenting to separation, yes, there’s a good chance they never would, which is why I mentioned that black nationalism necessitates white nationalism because only white racial consciousness could make it happen in an orderly way. An orderly way would then not be the same as an amicable way. Are separate nations the only way to deal with such sharp racial differences? When you get to such large numbers of blacks and whites, the only other way is a form of either white rule or black rule. One must dominate the other. You can’t administrate these elemental differences away. In recent years, we see the increasing dispossession of whites. They have been dispossessed of their culture, their property and their lives.

David J. writes:

I’m not trying to be a twit or smart aleck, but all my examples concern areas in which blacks are virtually separated unto themselves. If you want more instances of actual nations that I could have used, please refer to every single country south of the Sahara Desert.

Mark Jaws writes:

David J. brings up some very valid and welcome points.   As a career military officer, I have served with some very high caliber black men, who TEND to be quite conservative.  Back in the Summer of 1991, in the aftermath of Desert Storm, I ran into a dynamically brilliant black conservative Army captain named “Allen” in the Kelly Baracks gymnasium in Stuttgart, Germany.  That person was probably Allen West.  While I strongly advocate secession as the means of preserving a semblance of white-dominated, Western Civilization, I would welcome black men of West’s and David J’s caliber in any “white nation” we happen to forge.  Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, black men of their caliber are relatively few.

While no one can predict future events with much accuracy, I do know that one day, in the not so distant future, the federal government will run out of money, and those tens of millions of EBT cards will not be charged.  After that, Le Deluge.  The multi-cultural experiment will cease, and the group with the most arms, higher intelligence, and better plan to implement its vision will impose its will.  I doubt if the restraints imposed by Ashkenazi elites on rank and file conservatives will have much effect in the aftermath of a federal default and widespread food and race riots with urban blacks massacring unarmed and unprepared yuppie whites.  A scenario may occur in which it will really not matter what black Americans will want, because so few whites at that point will listen.

Feb. 26, 2014

David J. writes:

You mentioned, “When you get to such large numbers of blacks and whites, the only other way is a form of either white rule or black rule…You can’t administrate these elemental differences away. In recent years, we see the increasing dispossession of whites.”

Ah. So the post mainly pertains to the Negro Problem after all.

Of course, in line with what Mark Jaws wrote, all bets are off and my points moot if Americageddon occurs, the economy collapses, and society descends into a more chaotic, primitive state. The niceties and civilities of First-World living may then go up in smoke.

Until such events happen, my thinking is more hopeful and less fatalistic than Mrs. Wood’s and Mr. Jaws’ and more similar to the late Lawrence Auster’s. He clearly delineated a national, racial strategy in which white America would act like the majority race by, “re-assert[ing] itself as the majority and once again set[ting] the tone and standards for our culture; if the majority let blacks know that they are the minority, and that all white racial guilt is over….”

 Laura writes:

You write:

Ah. So the post mainly pertains to the Negro Problem after all.

You imply that my initial statements about the collective identity of blacks were a deliberate disguise for underlying antipathy and obsession with their destructive acts. This is a snarky comment. In any event, have it as you will. It is about the Negro Problem. There is indeed a Negro Problem. And that problem stems in part from incompatibilities between the races.

Obviously I don’t see fatalism in my posing the possibility of separate nations. It seems quite hopeful to me, but I understand that you think it would hurt blacks such as yourself and deprive them of opportunities. I don’t think separate nations need be, or could be, entirely separate. But in any event, I also posed the alternative, which is some form of black or white rule. Currently, it is black rule. Obviously I prefer white rule in the West.

For whites to set the tone of society, as Mr. Auster mentions, would require practically the same levels of self-assertion and command over blacks as would separating into different nations. Blacks, as you well know, would not readily accept this “tone.”

Mr. Auster, whom I assume you believe was obsessed with the “Negro Problem,” did not believe that cultural self-assertion and white-majority rule over a Tower of Babel were the only way. He said to me personally before he died that he believed at some point, perhaps in 100 years or so, the majority would come to see the wisdom of division and the races would basically (obviously not entirely) confine themselves to their ancestral lands in Africa, Asia and Europe. I am sure he expressed this possibility in his writings too, but I can’t point to a quote at the moment. The important thing is that he believed that racial differences must be reckoned with honestly and that honesty would lead organically to something better than universalistic egalitarianism, the dispossession of whites, and the homogenization of cultures.

Discussing the possibility of separate nations, as I have done in this short post, is an exercise in reckoning with those serious differences.

Laura writes:

In transmitting David J.’s last comment, I accidentally omitted his last paragraph. This occasionally happens in copying and pasting, which is why it’s always good if someone sees a glaring omission to mention it.

Here is the omitted paragraph:

Whites need not capitulate to irrational demands from blacks, allow millions of non-whites to immigrate to our shores, refuse to enforce swift punishment for violent crime, mandate Black History Month in public schools, or continue racial policies like affirmative action, disparate impact, and hate-crime legislation.  Race-based slavery was tried, but deemed untenable; de jure racial segregation was then attempted, but considered undesirable; now racial freedom with minority privileges holds the reins, but appears unworkable.  Let’s finally try racial freedom with majority rule and no minority privileges (i.e., equal opportunity with an expectation of unequal outcomes).  Whites can still effect this idea if they regain a healthy, benign degree of racial consciousness.  It’s up to you.

Laura writes:

So are you saying that blacks are going to stand by peacefully while all this racial affirmation is discarded?

The truth is, all the things you mention help blacks — and whites — process and explain the serious differences between the races. They explain them a false way, but they do explain them.

In any event, this white authority is a good idea, but I seriously question whether it would allow blacks to sustain their own culture.

The discussion continues here, in the entry “A Healthy Black Nationalism and its Benefits for Blacks.”

Please follow and like us: