Retired physicist Paul Nachman wrote this as a letter to the editor of the Duluth News-Tribune in 2012. It was never published.
“White Privilege”: One of The Stupidest Ideas of Our Time
By Paul Nachman
July 8, 2016
There’s a contradiction at the core of the Un-Fair campaign’s condemnation of “white privilege” in Duluth: The city was settled and built by a population that, over the generations, was overwhelmingly white. So naturally, it suits them—they built it for themselves.
Is such a white society less suitable for people of other races? It may well be. After all, for decades white communities have been hectored to welcome “diversity” and reap all its benefits. But if racial diversity is to yield benefits, people of different races must be, on average, systematically different. And those systematic differences must be in temperament, intelligence, and/or physical capabilities, not just in the trivial category of skin color. Else how could diversity make a difference, either beneficial or detrimental?
Further, such systematic differences would likely imply that non-whites don’t fit in perfectly to a society established by whites. So if those familiar claims about diversity are well founded, then complaining that white people unconsciously enjoy “unearned privilege” simply amounts to excoriating whites for being themselves and living their lives. (Similarly, the Japanese living in Japan could be condemned for possessing “unearned yellow privilege.”)
Thus there’s another contradiction here: Why would non-whites, presumably aiming to improve their circumstances by moving to a community created by whites, then complain about their new environs? Instead, they should rejuvenate a seemingly-forgotten tradition from America’s not-so-distant past: Assimilate!
N.S.: Nachman writes,
Editorial-page editor Chuck Frederick [firstname.lastname@example.org] promptly replied, and part of his explanation was that “After closer analysis, we were concerned by several statements in the letter that could potentially be perceived as offensive.”
Nachman believes that Frederick was being a wimp. I used to think that, but no longer do. My take is that people who talk like Frederick are actually rabid but duplicitous multiculturalists, who use the claim that someone might be “offended” as a dodge, to hide their own biases behind feigned concern for (certain) others. However, they have no fear of offending normal, patriotic whites. So, they are cowards, but a different kind of coward.