Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
200502 American Renaissance

200502 American Renaissance

Ratings: (0)|Views: 27 |Likes:
American Renaissance February 2005. The Racial Ideology of Empire; Rehabilitating (and Denaturing) the White Australia Policy; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers
American Renaissance February 2005. The Racial Ideology of Empire; Rehabilitating (and Denaturing) the White Australia Policy; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers

More info:

Published by: American Renaissance on Jan 31, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/31/2011

pdf

text

original

 
American Renaissance - 1 - February 2005
Continued on page 3
There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.
Thomas Jefferson
Vol. 16 No. 2Feburary 2005
The Racial Ideology of Empire
American Renaissance
The roots of our crisisgo deep into our past.
by Jared Taylor
I
t is not difficult to find expres-sions of racial consciousnessfrom prominent whites wholived only several generations ago.Colonization and empire-buildingprobably brought out the frankestof these sentiments. British ex-plorer and capitalist Cecil Rhodes,for example, stated at the turn of 20th century: “We are the first racein the world, and the more of theworld we inhabit, the better it isfor the human race.” At about thesame time, British Colonial Sec-retary Joseph Chamberlain ex-plained that “the spirit of adven-ture and enterprise distinguishingthe Anglo-Saxon race has made uspeculiarly fit to carry out the work-ing of colonization.” The Frenchtook a similar view, with even asocialist like Leon Blum noting in1925: “We recognize the right andeven the duty of superior races todraw unto them those which havenot arrived at the same level of culture.” The brief American experienceof traditional empire brought out thesame sentiments. After annexation of thePhilippines in 1899, Senator A.J.Beveridge wrote of “the mission of ourrace, trustees under God, of the civiliza-tion of the world.”It would be easy to conclude fromstatements like this—and there aremany—that race has been a consistentpart of Western consciousness, and thatonly recently have whites lost their way.That would be a mistake. During the agesof discovery and colonization, whitesrarely held well-considered or consistentviews of race. Their actions and opin-ions varied widely in time and from placeto place. Europeans often felt superiorto the primitive peoples with whom theycame into contact, but during the entiremodern period, there have always beenwhites who held anti-“racist” views of the kind that prevail today. Since theSecond World War, opinion has certainlyshifted in a markedly unhealthy di-rection, but Europeans have neverhad a sound, generally-acceptedunderstanding of race. An exami-nation of some of our past mistakesmay throw light on the mistakes weare making today.
General Principles
Despite a lack of consistencyabout race, a few principles doemerge from the imperial period.The most obvious is that almostwithout exception, it has been thewhites who were most distant fromnon-whites who took the most be-nign view of them. It was alwaysthe metropolitan authorities—whether in Britain, Spain, Franceor Portugal—who pushed for gen-tler and even equal treatment of colonial subjects. The men on theground understood that empirescould not be run on egalitarianprinciples. Whites who spent themost time overseas and who knewnon-whites best were the ones whowere least sentimental about them.At the same time, whites havelong had a tendency to be squea-mish and hypocritical about race.Even at the height of empire, colonialauthorities were full of false piety,mouthing high-sounding nonsense theydid not believe. Except for people on thefront lines of empire, there has been asurprising unwillingness of Europeans toassert racial interests, even when theyunderstood and believed in them. Timid-ity about race is nothing new.It is important to bear in mind thatalthough we tend to think of empire aswhites ruling non-whites, this is only onekind of empire. Anti-“racists” love to talk about overseas empire because it is sucha gratifying example of “white su-premacy,” but whites have had no com-
 
A recruiting poster from the French colonial service.
“We are the first race inthe world, and the moreof the world we inhabit,the better it is for thehuman race.”
 
American Renaissance - 2 - February 2005
 Letters from Readers
Sir — Raising the racial conscious-ness of white Americans (or perhaps Ishould say white North Americans sinceI am Canadian) is a complex task. Euro-peans live in nation-states that have somehistoric ethnic base, but white NorthAmericans are descended from manydifferent European ethnic nations. Theynow live in a single nation-state, whetherthe US or Canada, and many have there-fore lost their ethnic identities. A goodfirst step toward awakening racial con-sciousness is to rediscover ethnic roots.I come from the Scots-Irish segmentof the wider Scottish nation. When I wasdoing research on my family tree I camein contact with, and joined, the Seattle-based chapter of the Clan Gregor Soci-ety. From my new found kinfolk Ilearned that in the Pacific Northwestthere is a very active Scottish-Americancommunity. Events like the HighlandGames and Celtic festivals attract largecrowds. Among my ethnic kinfolk I alsofound I can discuss “forbidden” subjectswith greater ease.The Scots-Irish were originally fromthe Scottish Lowlands, and in the 1600sthey settled Northern Ireland. In the1700s, about 50,000 Scots-Irish crossedthe Atlantic as families or clans andsettled in the back country of Pennsyl-vania, Virginia, and the Carolinas. Laterwaves of this hardy and adventurousbreed loaded up wagons and headedWest. The descendents of those Scots-Irish who remained in Ireland, the Ul-ster Unionists, have recently been mak-ing contact with their American cousins.One result has been a series of culturalexchanges between Belfast, NorthernIreland, and Nashville, Tennessee.Many scholarly and popular booksabout the Scots-Irish have appeared onboth sides of the Atlantic. One of the bestis
 Born Fighting: How the Scots-IrishShaped America
, by James Webb, a re-tired Marine officer, former Pentagonofficial, and author of 
Fields of Fire
. Thisbook takes the reader right back to theScottish nation at the time of Hadrian’sWall. As the title suggests, one of thecentral themes is the unruly nature of theScots. Mr. Webb notes that the “unre-constructed redneck” so hated by Ameri-can elites is a Scots-Irish phenomenon.Fearing that knowledge of the Scots-Irish may disappear, Mr. Webb writes,“My culture needs to rediscover itself,and in so doing regain its power to shapethe direction of America.”This almost sounds like a call for ra-cial consciousness. Even non-Scots willfind the book intriguing, and may beencouraged to rediscover their English,German, Dutch, Scandinavian or Italianroots, as the first stop on a journey togreater racial awareness.Alex Greer, Victoria, B.C., CanadaSir — The current black governmentof South Africa is all set to change hun-dreds of place names. This is not democ-racy but sheer racialism. It is also cheek.Instead of governing the country for all,it is using its power to transform SouthAfrica into a black republic.The “Iziko” Cape Town Castle mu-seum (built by van Riebeek’s men in the17th century) now displays “70,000years of South African history.” SouthAfrica is 353 years old, not 70,000; therewas no South Africa before 1652. Theintent is to pass off the idea that SouthAfrica “belongs” to the ANC govern-ment, hence its right to change all theplace names.If Europeans had not landed here,South Africa would be what it was70,000 years ago—a sparsely-populatedwilderness, ruled by warring black tribes. So to whom does South Africarightfully belong, and who has the rightto change its names? The people whofounded and built the country, or thepeople who are stealing it?Ralph Pentecost, Oranjezicht, SouthAfricaSir — The articles you published inthe November issue about slavery repa-rations (“What Do We Owe Blacks” and“No, We Owe Them Nothing”) bothfailed to mention that we have alreadyspent trillions of dollars in reparationsin the form of welfare payments thathave overwhelmingly benefited blacksand other non-whites. As of 1998, justover 30 years into Lyndon Johnson’s“Great Society,” the US had spent morethan $5
trillion
on anti-poverty (welfare)programs with precious little to show forit. As Robert Rector of the HeritageFoundation wrote at the time, “For $5.4trillion, you can buy every factory, allthe manufacturing equipment and everyoffice building in the United States. Withthe money you have left over, you canbuy every airline, railroad, trucking firm,every telephone company, every radioand television broadcasting and cablecompany, every power company, everyhotel and every retail and wholesalestore.” Mr. Rector estimated another$2.38 trillion would be spent between1998 and 2003, but God only knows howmuch more good money chased afterbad. Whatever the amount, I’m sure thatthe portion that went to house, feed, andotherwise succor blacks far exceeds thevalue of whatever they produced duringthe slavery era.As dismaying as it is to read throughthe litany of welfare programs (there areat least 80 at the federal level, from theWeatherization Assistance Program tothe Needy and the Family Foods Distri-bution Program, to Day Care Assistancefor Families “At-Risk” of Welfare De-pendency), what’s even worse is that wewho pay for them never get the slightestgratitude from recipients. That must bewhy they call these programs “entitle-ments.”A reader in Florida
 
American Renaissance - 3 - February 2005
American Renaissance is published monthly by theNew Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $8.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) are $36.00. Subscriptionsoutside Canada and the U.S. (air mail) are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each. Foreignsubscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.AmRen.com
Continued from page 1
American Renaissance
Jared Taylor, EditorStephen Webster, Assistant EditorIan Jobling, Web Page EditorGeorge McDaniel, Web Page Consultantpunction about ruling each other. Euro-peans ended up with large African andAsian empires only because it was easierto subjugate non-white primitives thanto conquer fellow Europeans, but the his-tory of the West is of endless effortsby whites to dominate other whites.Even after the discovery of America, Spain ruled Portugal, andtried to invade Britain. Napoleonmade himself emperor of vast Eu-ropean territories without muchthought of possessions overseas.Even when overseas empire wasmost vigorous, when Chamberlainand Rhodes were glorying in bring-ing British rule to lesser breeds, theyfought their most savage colonialwar against whites—the Boers.When they boasted about the Brit-ish race, they meant the Britishpeople, not the white race. EvenHitler, presumably the most race-conscious empire-builder of the 20thcentury, conquered fellow Europe-ans rather than build an overseasempire, and had an alliance with thenon-white Japanese.This brings us to another rule thatgoverns the history of race and empire.Even among men who had no illusionsabout race—soldiers, for example, whokilled natives to make way for empire—there was nothing remotely like pan-Caucasian solidarity that transcendedEuropean nationalism. From the verybeginnings of colonialism through theSecond World War, Europeans enlistednon-whites in their wars with each other.There was some hesitation about teach-ing imperial subjects how to kill whitemen, but only because it might be harderto keep ex-soldiers as subjects, not be-cause having them shoot whites was abetrayal of racial loyalty.Non-white allies went into actionagainst whites as early as the 1580s,when Francis Drake used Indians in hisraids on the Spanish. During the Frenchand Indian War, both sides recruitedfriendly natives, and both sides let theirallies torture and mutilate captives, someof whom were white. Torture shockedBritish and French commanders, but itwas the price of alliance.During the Revolution, the Britishoffered freedom to American blacks whorevolted against their owners, and thefirst principle of colonization meant theBritish were much more successful thanthe revolutionaries in attracting Indianallies. Indians learned very quickly thatit was the people farthest away who likedthem most, and they wanted Britishrather than American rule.As the young republic expanded, bothSpain and England regularly armed In-dians and set them against Americans.Andrew Jackson wanted Indian lands,but his main reason for shipping tribesWest was to remove potentially danger-ous populations that could be stirred upby Europeans. Neither Americans northeir enemies had any scruples about en-couraging Indians to kill whites.Later, the British fielded regiments of Gurkhas and other Asians. The Frenchhad their North African Spahis andHarkis, as well as the famous
TirailleursSénégalais
, made up of blacks from allover West Africa, not just Senegalese.They used colored troops mainly to con-trol colonies—always deploying them sothey never had to fire on their ownpeople—but during the First World Warthey had them fight Germans. Sixty-fourthousand Indian troops died for Britain,many in Europe. France mobilized555,000 colonial troops, of whom78,000 died. During the SecondWorld War, the British raised 1.8million Indian and 375,000 black soldiers. Although Germany de-feated it early, France still managedto field 160,000 blacks.Such, then, is the checkered ra-cial history of colonialism. Overseasempire certainly meant whites rul-ing over non-whites, but it was notbased on coherent racial principles.The one great achievement of em-pire was to turn whole continentswhite, but the collapse of empire andthe non-white immigration that fol-lowed, has made it a very bad bar-gain, certainly for Europeans.
The British
All the great European empiresfollowed the same patterns, and the Brit-ish furnish as good an example as anyof racial incoherence and even naïveté.A surprising example of the latter wasthe establishment of the first permanentsettlement in Jamestown in 1607 (seeAR, Jan. 2004). By then, the Spanish hadbeen in the New World for over a cen-tury, and had a reputation for massacre.The English were determined to do bet-ter, bringing civilization and Christian-ity to what they expected would be grate-ful natives. As one backer of the VirginiaCompany wrote of the Indians he hadnever seen: “Their children when they
Allies of the French . . . or the British or the Spanish.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->