E. MICHAEL JONES argues in this interview that “white” is not a social identity, but a political trap.

Sorry, Dr. Jones, but you are wrong.

While it would be better to use the term “European American” because it is less stigmatized, the mere fact that people can intelligibly identify as “Caucasian” or “white” on medical and census questionnaires shows that the term is a biological reality and existing social identity. Genetic studies back that statement up. In a world where other races aggressively pursue their group interests by identifying as black or Mexican or Asian or Jewish, it is morally imperative for those with European ancestry to have some race consciousness — not, by any means, excessive racial pride or race hatred — lest they be culturally subjugated. The category of “white” is broad and genetically complicated. It is wrong to make one’s race the most important part of one’s identity. Race is most definitely secondary to theology. But race is real. Christians especially must shed a neurotic fear in order to preserve what’s left of Western civilization.

Read Lawrence Auster’s new book, Our Borders, Ourselves to understand why white identity is essential.

— Comments —

John E. writes:

I would enjoy an interaction between you and Dr. Jones on this if it were possible – would you consider an interview/dialogue/debate with him?  I don’t know the man, but from what I can tell, it seems he is open to almost any proposals for such things.

I understand where he is coming from I think, and though the topic interests me deeply, I’m not confident enough in my own thoughts on the subject to have much of any opinion.  His point as I’ve heard him elucidate it in past interviews, is that to accept the concept of white as a social identity is to fit yourself willingly into a frame prepared by those who would see our destruction.  Not the destruction of people with a certain skin tone, but people with more meaningful and essentially human commonalities, particularly religion, and then also language and folklore.  I do see this as a valid and persuasive argument.  Furthermore, it is not as though he doesn’t accede some intelligibility to the concept of whiteness.  He uses the term himself at times, though, I suppose, with deep reservations.

Laura writes:

I like Dr. Jones. I have met him on several occasions. Of course, I would debate him.

I think he’s rightly concerned about manufactured racial conflict. But I think one can approach this with moderation. I mean, I’m a Catholic before all else. That defines me (and presumably Dr. Jones too, although his heretical stance on Vatican II is not consistent with this.) I would like to rise above the racial dialogue, but I would also like to protect people from the all-encompassing neurosis of white guilt. The Catholic Church has never been opposed to healthy racial pride. It is universalistic and, at the same time, particularistic. Unfortunately, we of the European diaspora have not much identity any longer in being Irish or Polish or German. That’s a shame, but America grinds down distinctions.

John E. writes:

I’ll have to listen to the interview you linked, though I expect I’m familiar enough with Jones on this topic to say with some certainty that I won’t be introduced to anything entirely new.

As much as I respect Dr. Jones, part of the problem I have in forming a conclusion on this is the difficulty you allude to, that is, exactly how are we supposed to refer to ourselves in terms of the human reality of race when (as is the case for so many in America) one has no predominant origin to point to aside from greater Europe.  It’s only a little awkward for Dr. Jones to refer to himself as bi-racial (German and Irish), but nearly nonsensical for me to do something similar when I have, as far as I can tell, about ten different European countries from which my ancestors had roots, none of them particularly predominant in little ol’ me.  If I refer to my race, what am I supposed to call it?  However, I’m persuaded by Jones’ warning that accepting the category of ‘white’ is conceding to our enemies the power to define us on terms of their choosing.  Also, “white” (and “black” for that matter) is such an undignified and crass way of describing this human quality, fine in colloquial situations but not seemingly appropriate as a formal description, in spite of how we’ve come to accept it.  But you touch on this with your preference for “European American” of course.

Laura writes:

“White” and “black” are crass terms. Very good point.

“European American” and “African American” are better. But they’re kind of a mouthful and, in some contexts, they come across as pretentious.

The French and Germans and Irish don’t have this problem. The French in their own country are a race. Germans are a race. The Irish are a race. America was comprised of them all.

Please follow and like us: