Black Racists versus White Trash | The Libertarian Institute
https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/blog/black-racists-versus-white-trash/

June 5, 2017

By Mencken's Ghost

Perhaps you've watched the YouTube video of the "students" at Evergreen
State College screaming racist slurs about whites, as they tried without
success to form intelligent thoughts in a meeting with the college
president.

If you've watched it, my condolences for the resulting brain damage.  If
you haven't seen it and are a masochist, it can be watched at the
following link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO1agIlLlhg

On a related note, I recently read the book, /White Trash:  The 400-Year
Untold History of Class in America./  I'll explain momentarily how this
is related to the Evergreen incident.

This makes at least 1,500 scholarly books that I've read since my
college years long ago, not counting the book that I authored.  All of
that reading has made me realize how little I knew about the world in
college and how little I still know, as I will prove herein.

Judging by their stunning display of ignorance and inarticulateness, the
Evergreen students and other collegiate racists will never be learned
enough to realize how little they know.  Their sophomoric racial dogma,
or /Summa Gens Theologica/,//can be summarized as follows:  Whites are
inherently evil, because they come from privilege, have oppressed
nonwhites throughout history, and are living on wealth taken by force
from other races.

In this stunted thinking, whites are an anomaly among human beings
instead of a reflection of universal human nature and a product of
historical forces.  It takes a special kind of ignorance not to
understand that if the Mongols or Comanche or sub-Saharan Africans or
scores of other races had developed sophisticated sailing ships,
cannons, muskets, and administrative states, they would have engaged in
just as much if not more conquering, colonizing and enslaving—but
probably without also developing classical liberal values that enable
college students to make fools of themselves without being imprisoned or
killed.

Then there is the complicated matter of what constitutes a privileged
white person.  Take Hispanics, who are seen by collegiate racists as
fellow travelers in racial grievances.  But should they be exempted from
hatred?

To answer this question, consider that the word "Hispanic" means someone
with genetic roots in the Iberian Peninsula.

Note to millennials who never learned geography and history:  The
peninsula is part of white Europe and is the home of Portugal and Spain,
the very same nations that inflicted the worst brutalities, genocides
and diseases on native populations in the Americas.

Many Portuguese and Spaniard conquerors mixed their genes with the
native populations, while others didn't stray sexually from their own
race.  As a result,  Hispanics today throughout the Americas can have a
bloodline that ranges from 100% white to 100% Native American, with most
falling somewhere in between.

This leaves the collegiate racists with a dilemma:  Which Hispanics
should they hate for being white?  The ones with 100% white European
blood, the ones with 75%, the ones with 50%, or the ones with just a tad?

On a more personal note, how do they rank my whiteness on their hate
scale?  After all, I'm a swarthy descendant of Italian peasants, who,
given the history of the races that have crisscrossed the Italian
Peninsula, probably passed on to me a mix of Greek, Egyptian, Persian,
Mongol, and African blood, with dashes of DNA from Muslim slave traders
and their human goods.  Should I be hated more or less than a Hispanic?
Or how about my Swedish/Scots-Irish wife, who hails from the Allegheny
Mountains of rural Pennsylvania, a renowned center of white privilege
and power that is comparable to Manhattan and Santa Barbara?  (Dear
Millennials:  That was tongue in cheek.)

Fortunately, with advances in bioscience, the racists don't have to
resort to the Nazi way of identifying races by skin color, hook noses,
hair color, and other physical features.  When they get enough political
power to run the government, the racists can use DNA analysis to
distinguish between in-favor and out-of-favor races.

Of course, as any thinking person knows, it's a trope that all whites
are privileged oppressors.  This is made clear in the aforementioned
book: /White Trash:  The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America/,
by Nancy Isenberg, a professor of history at Louisiana State University.

As the book details, many whites are part of a large underclass, an
underclass that has existed since the days of the early colonists.   The
roots of the underclass go back to the indentured servants, criminals,
and other undesirables who were shipped to America by the English ruling
class.   Denied voting rights and property ownership in the following
decades, the offspring of these outcasts were treated nearly as badly as
slaves and even seen as inferiors by freed blacks. Not only that, but
the institution of slavery kept them poor, because they had to compete
in hardscrabble farming and unskilled jobs with cheaper slave labor.

This discrimination continues today, with the poor and uneducated white
underclass being derisively labeled as white trash, hillbillies,
rednecks, and other pejoratives.  Hillary Clinton referred to them as
undesirables, which was rich considering her husband's hound-dog roots
and sexual attraction to what Clinton advisor Carville called "trailer
trash."

No doubt, trailer trash cannot be found in the student population at
Evergreen State University, for they are excluded from affirmative
action and diversity goals.  However, they can be found in
disproportionate numbers in morgues, hospitals, and welfare offices,
because they are inflicted disproportionately with disease, drug
addiction, opioid overdoses, obesity, broken families, and shortened
life expectancy.  In fact, their overall health and well-being are on a
downward trajectory while those of blacks are on an upward trajectory.

There is something in the book for everyone to dislike.  Conservative
nationalists won't like the contention that for much of its history,
America was more of a tarnished city on a hill than a shining city on a
hill, particularly for the white underclass.  Collegiate racists and
their leftist professors won't like the contention that many whites
don't come from privilege and don't have political power.

I don't have a rooster in this partisan cockfight between Republicans
and Democrats, but I also found something to dislike in the book—namely,
that the author sometimes veered from her superb scholarship into the
partisan weeds.

For example, the last chapter is an emotional rant against Republicans,
as if Democrats don't have dirty hands when it comes to race and class.
And in her thesis about the permanency of a white underclass in America,
the author says little about class mobility; that is, about the
considerable number of disadvantaged whites (and nonwhites) who have
escaped their lower class over the nation's history by climbing the
socioeconomic ladder.  Nor does the author mention the staggering sums
spent on welfare, education, and other social programs in an attempt to
rectify the problems of the black, brown and white underclass.

In the author's defense, she works in the privileged and protected
cocoon known as academia, which is 90% Democrat.  Undoubtedly, she
couldn't be sympathetic to the white underclass without spouting the
requisite left-liberal cant as a form of insurance against claims that
she is insensitive to people of color.  Otherwise, she could be
ostracized in the faculty lounge, or worse, find herself surrounded by
screaming racist lunatics on campus.

Actually, the author has nothing to fear from the likes of the Evergreen
racists.  They would never read a book like hers.  They don't have the
open-mindedness and intellectual horsepower.